Épistémologies civiles et institutionnalisation de trois technologies médicales controversées
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les nouvelles technologies médicales suscitent régulièrement des controverses scientifiques et sociales. Pour alimenter l’opinion publique, les journalistes utilisent plusieurs sources, incluant des médecins et des associations de patients qui font valoir divers arguments scientifiques, cliniques, sociaux ou fondés sur des histoires vécues. Dans un tel espace de délibération politique, où la science, la clinique et les trajectoires de vies personnelles se côtoient, comment les politiques publiques deviennent-elles légitimes ? Et quels arguments permettent l’institutionnalisation des innovations médicales ? Cet article explore comment les points de vue des spécialistes médicaux, ceux rapportés par la presse écrite et ceux des associations de patients, s’articulent autour de trois cas spécifiques : le dépistage du syndrome de Down, les électrochocs et le dépistage du cancer de la prostate par antigène prostatique spécifique. Pour chacun des cas, une histoire domine et réussit tant bien que mal à forger une direction claire dans laquelle institutionnaliser l’innovation.
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 | 0.040 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".