Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les travaux qui portent sur la mise en oeuvre des politiques publiques et, en particulier, sur la sreet-level bureaucracy appréhendent généralement la question du pouvoir discrétionnaire à un niveau individuel à partir de la liberté d’action dont disposeraient les agents de terrain. Sur la base d’une enquête ethnographique au sein de l’administration responsable du traitement des demandes d’asile en Suisse, cet article analyse la question sous un autre angle : à partir des médiations sociales, institutionnelles et juridiques à travers lesquelles le droit oriente les comportements des agents. L’analyse des médiations du droit révèle surtout l’importance d’un pouvoir normatif collectif de l’administration, qui réside dans l’élaboration de « normes secondaires d’application » par les agents. Cet article montre aussi qu’il existe, au sein de l’institution, tout un travail à la fois juridique et social qui encadre, oriente et contraint les pratiques des agents.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".