Transformation des modes étatiques de contrôle social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse au problème des transformations récentes des formes étatiques de contrôle social. Avant même de statuer sur la réalité ou la profondeur de ces changements, les auteurs s’interrogent sur la différence entre les projets et la mise en œuvre de transformations. Ils attirent l’attention sur la complexité de ce qu’il et convenu de nommer le système pénal et, conséquemment, de ses transformations possibles. Distinguant les divers niveaux de cohérence entre éléments du système, ils montrent comment logiques politiques et bureaucratiques manifestent avant tout des tendances contradictoires. Après avoir distingué cinq modalités d’intervention étatique dans le domaine du contrôle social — production législative et réglementaire, financement, coordination des activités des agences, supervision des activités des agences, gestion directe — ils présentent les principales transformations des pratiques discursives entourant le contrôle social et abordent quelques exemples d’évolution de ces activités de contrôle, en particulier le bénévolat et la privatisation.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".