Un regard québécois sur la nouvelle législation française relative aux personnes handicapées
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article traite de la legislation francaise sur les personnes handicapees, en s’appuyant essentiellement sur les lois de 1975 et de 2005. Nous avons effectue un depouillement a chaud de la litterature relative a l’adoption de la loi concernant «l’egalite des droits et des chances, la participation et la citoyennete des personnes handicapees» (2005). L’avis de certaines associations nous a permis d’apprehender les eventuelles failles de cette loi et de la precedente. Dans un objectif de comparaison entre la France et le Quebec, nous mettons en exergue leurs buts communs sur le plan de l’integration et de la participation, de meme que les dispositifs que leur gouvernement envisage afin de les actualiser, comme la compensation du handicap et la realisation d’un projet de vie. Nous observons sans surprise la manifestation de resistances face a ces nouvelles dispositions legislatives. Une dissemblance cruciale est a noter: le statut de province du Quebec au sein d’une confederation delimite son champ d’action quant a la mise en oeuvre d’une legislation sociale. Alors que la France, un pays, beneficie d’une toute autre latitude dans le contexte europeen. Enfin, nous evoquons l’implication des personnes handicapees ainsi que l’alliance du tiers secteur avec l’administration publique dans le processus d’elaboration des politiques sociales actuelles.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".