La méthode de l’évaluation des risques sanitaires en France : représentations, évolutions et lectures plurielles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parmi les méthodes employées par les scientifiques et dont la destinée accompagne les permanences et les mutations de l’expertise de la société française, l’évaluation des risques sanitaires a connu un certain succès. Pendant près de quinze ans, les présentations de cet outil et ses rapports avec la gestion des risques vont enregistrer un certain nombre d’évolutions. Les représentations ou les lectures de l’évaluation diffèrent selon les champs administratifs, politiques ou scientifiques qui s’en emparent. Cette plasticité est liée aux développements de la réflexion scientifique et aux perspectives disciplinaires qui participent à l’élaboration de l’évaluation. Elle renvoie non seulement aux usages que font les acteurs de la méthode, mais aussi aux configurations changeantes des dispositifs de sécurité sanitaire qui orientent les lectures et les pratiques. Bien que l’on observe la volonté d’intégrer les parties prenantes dans l’évaluation, ces transformations au statut et au devenir incertains restent l’œuvre d’acteurs qui n’agissent guère en dehors des cadres institutionnels.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.133 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".