MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2519663857 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.2176

Réflexion sur l’héritage corporatiste de la profession médicale

2003· article· fr· W2519663857 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Gérald Larose

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quelles sont les causes de la crise actuelle du système de santé au Québec ? Peut-on simplement les réduire à la pénurie des ressources humaines, matérielles ou financières ? Ou existerait-il d’autres causes peut-être plus pernicieuses ? Par le biais d’une analyse systémique, on peut identifier quatre niveaux de mutations pouvant affecter l’organisation du système de santé soit 1) au niveau de la conception de sa mission au sein de la société, 2) au niveau de l’équilibre des pouvoirs entre les divers acteurs, 3) au niveau des structures internes et enfin 4) au niveau de l’évolution des ressources technologiques. Mais c’est en regard de l’organigramme du pouvoir que l’on peut constater un déséquilibre pouvant entraîner une érosion générale du système de santé. En effet, les conséquences sociales du pouvoir disproportionné de la corporation médicale doivent être mieux connues, d’autant plus que ce déséquilibre semble injustifié et démesuré en comparaison des autres corps professionnels qui, tout aussi garants de la protection de biens publics fondamentaux, ne promeuvent pas leurs intérêts corporatistes au détriment des enjeux sociaux plus globaux et du bien commun.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0150.039
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207