Les luttes émancipatrices à l’heure de l’État néo-managérial : l’exemple de VANDU
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À travers l’exemple des mobilisations d’usagers de drogues à Vancouver, cette analyse montre comment le répertoire du community organizing peut accroître la capacité d’action collective des personnes les plus marginalisées et les aider à promouvoir des visées d’émancipation et de démocratisation. Les luttes en question ont contribué au développement d’un « mouvement de libération des utilisateurs de drogues » qui, par ses campagnes en faveur de l’ouverture du premier site légal d’injection supervisé en Amérique du Nord, deviendra en quelques années l’un des plus importants mouvements d’usagers de drogues. Mais cet exemple témoigne aussi de la difficulté de garder le cap sur ces visées quand la valorisation de l’autonomie et de la responsabilité individuelle s’impose comme un nouvel air du temps. À l’heure de l’action publique néo-managériale, une voie possible peut alors consister à prendre l’État au mot en retournant contre lui ses propres arguments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".