Politiques publiques et santé:les dilemmes de I‘évaluation prospective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Depuis le milieu des années 1990, plusieurs gouvernements ont affirmé leur volonté de tenir compte des impacts de leurs actions sur la santé des populations. En juin 2002, le gouvernement du Québec met en vigueur l'article 54 de la Loi sur la santé publique (L.R.Q. chapitre S-22, 2001). Cet article atteste de l'obligation pour les ministères de tenir dorénavant compte des impacts sociaux, environnementaux et économiques de leurs actions sur la santé. La mise en Oeuvre de cet article suppose l'intégration d'un processus d'évaluation prospective des politiques publiques dans l'appareil gouvernemental, remet en question le fonctionnement vertical des administrations publiques et souligne l'importance d'une gestion stratégique des connaissances dans un monde sans frontières. Dans ce contexte, quatre dilemmes sont soulevés. Les deux premiers dilemmes sont d'ordre interministériel. Ils concernent les relations qu'entretiennent les ministéres entre eux et avec les organismes centraux. Les deux autres dilemmes s'intéressent à la dimension intra organisationnelle, c'est-à-dire la maniére dont chaque ministère réagit face aux demandes d'évaluations prospectives de ses politiques ou programmes et répond aux exigences dc l'article 54. Des méthodes qui devraient permettre aux administrations publiques de remédier à ces différents dilemmes sont également présentées. Abstract: Since the mid-1990s, several governments have declared their commitment to ensuring that the impact of their actions on the health of the population is taken into account. In June 2002 the Quebec provincial government implemented article 54 of the Public Health Act (R.S.Q., chapter 2.2, 2001). This article stipulates the obligation on the part of the government departments to take into account the social, environmental, and economic impacts of their actions on public health in the future. The implementation of this article means integrating a process for the prospective assessment of the government's public policies, and re-examining the vertical model of operation of public administrations; it also underlines the importance of strategic knowledge management in a world without borders. Four dilemmas are raised within this context. The first two dilemmas are interdepartmental in nature, and involve the relationships the government departments have with each other and with the central agencies. The other two dilemmas fall within the intra-organizational sphere - that is, the way in which each government department reacts to the demands for the prospective assessment of its public policies or programs, and how each department responds to the requirements of article 54. Processes that should allow the public administrations to solve these various dilemmas are also presented.
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 | 0.271 | 0.273 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.029 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".