La dialectique de la surveillance et le nouveau régime d'assurancemédicaments au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Les travaux sur la surveillance ont surtout mis en évidence le pouvoir administratif croissant des organisations modernes, principalement 1'État et I'entreprise privée. La présente étude prend le contre‐pied de ces travaux. Elle montre que certains systèmes de surveillance, en particulier les banques de données de la Régie de I'assurance‐maladie du Québec, peuvent contribuer à la transparence et a I'imputabilité des décisions gouvemementales lors de l'élaboration et de la mise en euvre des politiques publiques. C'est le cas du nouveau régime d'assurance‐médicaments au Québec qui, par sa transparence, a permis à des agents de la société civile d'exercer à leur tour une surveillance sur 1'État. Comme I'indique notre étude, l'éitat peut être à la fois un puissant agent de surveillance et un agent étroitement surveillé et publiquement imputable. L'étude montre aussi que la surveillance peut être une arme à double tranchant non seulement pour les dirigeants de I'État, mais aussi pour les agents sociaux qui leur résistent, d'oú l'importance d'être vigilant dans le déploiement de la surveillance. Abstract: Work undertaken on monitoring activities has, for the most part, highlighted the increasing administrative authority of modern organizations, mainly that of the government and of private corporations. This study takes the opposing view of such work. It shows that monitoring systems, more specifically the Régie de l'assurance‐maladie du Québec databases, can contribute to the transparency and accountability of government decisions in developing and implementing public policies. Such is the case with the new Prescription Drug Insurance Plan in Quebec, the transparency of which afforded civil‐society officials the opportunity to monitor the government. As the study shows, the government can be both a powerful monitoring agent and a closely monitored and publicly accountable one. The study also shows that monitoring can be a double‐edged sword, not only for government officials but also for social‐agency officials who stand up to them, hence the importance of exercising great care when performing monitoring activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
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".