L’esthétique de la santé publique : essai d’analyse réaliste des qualités de l’expérience de services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alors que le design est aujourd’hui activement engagé dans l’amélioration des soins, des technologies et des établissements de santé, les frontières de la santé publique restent imperméables à ses approches, concepts et méthodes. En prenant appui sur quatre projets en design social promulguant des modes de vie sains, cet article explore les liens entre les champs du design et de la santé publique. En prenant appui sur l’approche réaliste de l’esthétique, l’analyse révèle les qualités expérientielles de mesures de santé publique. De fait, l’analyse des projets montre comment on peut attester que les enjeux de design en santé publique débordent la seule question de la nature des objets concernés et interpellent les modalités du savoir à propos de ces objets. En conséquence, cet article jette les bases théoriques d’une approche design de la santé publique.
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 | 0.066 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".