Defining the ‘public’ in a public healthcare system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data from a larger study on public participation in the Quebec healthcare system, we draw on the sociological theory of Bourdieu to analyze speakers’ in-use definition of ‘the public’ in some 100 interview and observation notes. We found that the definition of ‘the public’ is the subject of a vigorous struggle at the symbolic level. Many actors share a common, but often conflicting, interest in the elaboration and objectification of a given definition of ‘the public’ because their legitimacy is strongly related to their ability to be perceived either as representing the ‘public’ will or as acting in the ‘public’s’ interest. Building upon the categorizations used in the discourses, we are also able to draw a picture of each group of actors’ positions and strategies in this struggle. This picture reveals how the claim to directly represent the public’s ‘will’ is closely related to actors’ lack of formal power to influence decision-making in the system. We then use these observations to discuss the role of discourses in political and symbolical struggles.
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 | 0.028 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".