MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092425792 · doi:10.3917/rce.002.0206

Évaluer les services publics : l'exemple de la santé

2007· article· fr· W2092425792 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Le Bouler

Bibliographic record

VenueRegards croisés sur l'économie/Regards croisés sur l'économie · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesCentralisationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'évaluation des actions établies dans l'intérêt de la santé des populations est chose récente en France. Après avoir passé en revue ce qu'il en est de l'évaluation aujourd'hui, Stéphane Le Bouler, responsable de la mission recherche de la DREES, souligne les prérequis d'une telle entreprise : rompre avec l'hypothèse de bienveillance sans dresser de nouvelles icônes, oser la concurrence par comparaison, développer une approche qualité véritable, prendre en compte la décentralisation. La mise en place d'une véritable « démocratie sanitaire » ne saurait ainsi se réduire à des formules de participation erratiques.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.006
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRegards croisés sur l'économie/Regards croisés sur l'économieSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207