Discours néolibéral d’émancipation dans le champ de l’usage des drogues : réduction des méfaits et empowerment1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le champ de la régulation de l’usage des drogues a connu des transformations majeures au cours des dernières décennies. Ces transformations se sont particulièrement manifestées par l’engouement pour les stratégies de réduction des méfaits et la prolifération des techniques et programmes d’empowerment. L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser la popularité accrue de ces nouvelles stratégies d’intervention à la lumière des transformations plus globales que marque le passage d’un mode de régulation providentialiste à un mode de régulation néolibéral. Cette analyse nous conduit à identifier deux thématiques réciproques de cette nouvelle forme de régulation, soit la critique du modèle institutionnel de type providentialiste et la promotion de la participation citoyenne. Cette analyse nous permet de poursuivre plus avant une réflexion sur la manière dont sont définies ces nouvelles dynamiques émancipatrices à l’ère du néolibéralisme.
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 | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".