Bibliographic record
Abstract
En prenant le parti de ne pas chercher la definition substantielle des « bonnes pratiques » mais de s’interesser aux fonctions qui sont assignees a ces regles par le legislateur et les autorites sanitaires, l’article montre que les « bonnes pratiques » font advenir des preoccupations, des strategies de « performance » dans le systeme de sante. Elles temoignent, au moins implicitement, d’une evolution du rapport a la norme et, plus singulierement, a la juridicite. Mais surtout, elles introduisent des mutations dans les deux categories juridiques les plus traditionnelles du droit de la sante, celle de professionnel de sante et celle de patient invitant a porter desormais le regard, s’agissant des professionnels moins sur leurs diplomes que sur leurs competences, et s’agissant du patient, moins sur son etat que sur l’usage qu’il fait des ressources medicales qui lui sont proposees.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.006 |
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".