Les Réformes en santé et en justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'action publique est traversee d'un perpetuel mouvement. Elle ne peut conserver longtemps la meme forme. C'est par consequent le defi continu de l'Etat de reformer ses procedures, d'alleger ses structures, de retablir la justification – sinon la legitimite – de ses interventions. A moyen terme, la formalisation – sinon la ritualisation – de l'action publique impose inevitablement une distance entre les criteres formels de l'action et ses visees originales. Des crises naissent, qui necessitent une reforme des modalites d'intervention de l'Etat. S'ensuit un mouvement de reforme continu. Les dernieres annees ont favorise le developpement d'une approche nouvelle, observee dans de nombreux Etats occidentaux. Elle suppose presque toujours un appel direct aux acteurs du champ, l'etablissement d'alliances avec certains partenaires privilegies, la negociation avec ces partenaires des orientations de l'action publique, la multiplication d'alliances a geometrie variable ou l'Etat agit a la fois comme partenaire et comme arbitre. Peut-on reformer les formes de la gouvernementalite ? Cette question est exploree ici dans une serie d'etudes conduites au Quebec et en France dans les secteurs de la sante et de la justice. Francois BUTON, Andre-Pierre CONTANDRIOPOULOS, Jean-Louis DENIS, Mylene JACCOUD, Paul LAMARCHE, Violaine LEMAY, Nadine MACHIKOU, Pierre NOREAU, Frederic PIERRU, Marc RIOUX, Guy ROCHER, Antoine VAUCHEZ, Laurent WILLEMEZ
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".