Critique de l’ingénierie organisationnelle du Plan d’action en santé mentale 2005-2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Plan d'action en santé mentale 2005-2010 commands a substantial reform of mental health services organization. In order to achieve this, the Plan draws upon a set of ideas that appear somewhat unsubstantiated in regards to the sciences of organization. This article examines a few of these ideas. The managerial rhetoric of the Plan is anchored in an organizational and mechanistic archetype known for its inadequacy in the central mission of organizations of complex human services such as those concerning mental health. The mechanist rationality adopted marginalizes the real source of the value of mental health services, of practitioners and their social institutions. It participates in a movement that renders organizations always bigger, more abstract and impersonal steered from a distance by superficial indicators. There are good reasons to believe that this approach of organizational engineering will accentuate the eroding of the individual and collective capacities of delivering services of great value.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".