Tensions entre rationalité technique et intérêts politiques: l'exemple de la mise en œuvre de la<i>Loi sur les agences de développement de réseaux locaux de services de santé et de services sociaux</i>au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: L'objet de cet article est constitué par les processus décisionnels entourant la mise en œuvre de la Loi sur les agences de développement de réseaux locaux de services de santé et de services sociaux (Loi 25). Nous entendons mettre en lumière les stratégies des groupes ou institutions de diverses natures qui ont fait valoir leurs préférences et ont tenté, avec un succès inégal, d'influencer les décisions relatives à cette réforme majeure de la structure du système de santé québécois. Au plan théorique, nous nous appuyons principalement sur les modèles d'analyse du lobbying qui, depuis les travaux fondateurs de Milbrath (1960, 1963), présentent cette pratique comme un processus fondamental d'échange d'information. Selon les données colligées dans les retranscriptions d'entrevues, les stratégies observées correspondent effectivement aux caractéristiques constitutives du lobbying et, dans quelques situations, à celles du patronage. La combinaison de ces divers éléments révèle que la mise en œuvre de la Loi 25 s'avère être avant tout un processus proprement politique. Ainsi, furent relégués au second plan les arguments techniques qui composaient initialement les objectifs de la Loi. Abstract: This article focuses on the decision‐making processes surrounding the implementation of Bill 25, Quebec's Act Respecting Local Health and Social Services Network Development Agencies. Our intention is to shed light on the strategies of the various groups or institutions that expressed their preferences and attempted, with varying degrees of success, to influence decisions with respect to this major reform of the Quebec health system structure. On a theoretical level, we are relying mostly on the models for analysing the lobbying process, which, since the seminal work of Milbrath (1960, 1963), have essentially presented this practice as a process for exchanging information. Based on the information gathered in the re‐transcribed interviews, the strategies observed are actually in line with the constitutive characteristics of lobbying and, in some situations, those of patronage. Ultimately, the combination of these various elements makes it obvious that the implementation of Bill 25 was, first and foremost, a clearly political process. The technical arguments on which the initial objectives of the act were centred have thereby been relegated to the backstage.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".