L’ambition territoriale dans le dossier de la santé en français
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dix ans se sont écoulés depuis le jugement Montfort, qui consacrait l’Hôpital comme une composante essentielle de la vitalité des communautés francophones en situation minoritaire. Jusqu’à quel point cette reconnaissance du droit à un service en français, accessible dans des établissements localisés dans les milieux dans lesquels la minorité évolue, a-t-elle mené à une ambition plus territoriale chez les intervenants francophones ? L’analyse des propos tenus par 38 participants à un exercice de cartographie conceptuelle sur l’avenir des services de santé en français en Ontario révèle qu’ils ne s’aventurent pas très loin sur le terrain des modalités de l’édification d’un véritable territoire francophone en santé. L’institution est évoquée, mais davantage comme un projet appartenant à un horizon lointain que comme un enjeu actuel. En guise de conclusion, les auteures se sont interrogées sur les effets d’une telle vision sur l’avenir des services de santé en français.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".