Bibliographic record
Abstract
Peut-on qualifier de « politique du risque » un dispositif d’action publique qui s’inspire de cette notion, mais ne s’en réclame jamais explicitement ? Le présent article soutient que la rhétorique du risque, issue des domaines environnementaux et bioéthiques, imprègne de façon croissante l’attitude des pouvoirs publics à l’égard des questions familiales. Tel est le cas de la procédure française d’agrément en vue d’adoption qui aborde l’homosexualité des candidats comme un danger potentiel pour l’enfant et pour la société. Nous formulons l’hypothèse que les travailleurs sociaux en charge de l’adoption dramatisent les enjeux de leur intervention pour mieux asseoir l’autorité de leurs décisions et, en conséquence, leur position institutionnelle. Mais le risque doit toujours rester inavoué : sa force performative réside dans la production de figures imaginaires à l’aune desquelles les candidats sont implicitement enjoints à s’identifier. Le risque constitue ainsi un instrument de la production biographique du « public » des politiques adoptives.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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".