Bibliographic record
Abstract
À rebours d’une vision triomphaliste dans laquelle les droits seraient acquis et opérationnels, ce chapitre approfondit la délicate concrétisation des droits du patient. Prenant appui sur ses enquêtes ethnographiques sur les dispositifs de médiation, son auteur éclaire ces renouvellements de l’action publique en Belgique et au Québec à partir de ce qu’il appelle un « État réflexif ». Une leçon politique importante se dégage : le type de coordination en cours influence directement le degré d’existence des droits du patient. La coordination lâche observée en Belgique limite leurs possibilités de réalisation, tandis que la coordination travaillée à l’œuvre au Québec favorise un plus grand confort dans leur concrétisation. Examiner l’écologie du travail politique, juridique et organisationnel permet de questionner ce qui assure l’État réflexif, favorise une action publique plus coopérative, renoue le dialogue entre les patients et les professionnels de santé, et inscrit une pédagogie des droits dans la vie des usagers, des professionnels et des institutions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.005 |
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".