Les artisans du changement : autour d’un échange plénier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The closing plenary of the colloquium was an occasion for exchange between the four panelists and the participants. The panelists included Luc Berghmans, a doctor and director of the regional health observatory of Hainaut, Belgium; Louise Bouchard, a sociologist and professor in the Sociology and Anthropology Department, University of Ottawa, Canada; Michel O’Neill, a sociologist and professor at the Faculty of Nursing Sciences, Laval University, Quebec City, Canada; and Philippe Lorenzo, director general of IREPS, the regional bureau for health education and promotion of Picardie in Amiens, France. Louise Potvin, who moderated the plenary, provides the summary that follows. During the colloquium, three main questions were debated: 1. At what point should health be placed at the forefront of local actions, if we wish to promote the values of equity? 2. How should actions at the local, regional, national and global levels be organized and articulated? Who are the partners, and what forms of governance need to be put into place? 3. What are the parameters needed in order to define the roles, tasks and competencies of the implementers of local and regional health programs, the architects of change? Each panelist had to respond to two out of the three questions. We report on the answers that panelists gave to these questions. As it is impossible to verify the exactitude of information given by audience members in support of their viewpoints, only the content of the remarks is given, without mentioning the examples that were provided.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.015 |
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".