Chapitre 11. Favoriser l'implication du public pour accroître la légitimité des prises de décision en matière de politiques de santé ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The participation of the public in the elaboration of politics has become unavoidable in most countries. The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights of UNESCO, adopted by the General conference in 2005, makes the public a paramount aspect in the decision making in bioethics. In the case of explanatory research, based on political analysis and guidelines on the newborn screening programs from different countries, we have examined how the "public" is defined (who is the public?), what are the levels of privileged engagement, and what are the objectives sought out by this public participation? In general terms, we have noticed that the terms "consultation", "engagement", "participation" and "partnership" are often used as though they were synonymous, that the "public" is rarely well defined and that the levels of engagement from the public are variable. However, in spite of these findings, it appears that this willingness to respect the choice of individuals and to implicate the population in the debates or in the elaboration of health policies is motivated by the pursuit of values. These last few, although not frequently explicitly named to justify the initiative to involve the public constitute the source of these initiatives. In summary, it is evident that the moral values result in a significant difference in the answers that a population will give to the issues raised in a given domain and that these are often values that participation of the public looks to better identify and to integrate into health policies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.041 | 0.004 |
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".