Articuler différenciation et standardisation dans l'analyse de l'action publique locale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Où en est-on aujourd'hui de la réflexion sur " le local " et sur la capacité des espaces politiques infranationaux à développer une action publique autonome ? En quoi l'articulation entre standardisation et différenciation renouvelle-t-elle des interrogations anciennes tout en permettant la prise en compte d'enjeux actuels ? Dans quelle mesure la confrontation des regards entre la France, la Suisse, la Belgique et le Canada éclaire-t-elle la recomposition des espaces politiques infranationaux ? Ces interrogations sont au cœur de l'ouvrage " L'action publique locale dans tous ses états. Différenciation et standardisation ", issu d'une réflexion collective amorcée à Grenoble en 2009 lors du Congrès de l'Association française de science politique (AFSP). L'originalité de la démarche adoptée par les différents auteurs réside dans l'appréhension de la question de la différenciation territoriale à partir d'une double problématique.
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 | 0.025 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".