Advocacy et nouveaux modes managériaux : le rôle politique de deux ordres professionnels de la santé
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur la rhétorique déployée par deux ordres professionnels, l’Ordre des ergothérapeutes du Québec et l’Ordre des orthophonistes et des audiologistes du Québec, lorsqu’ils sont interpellés à contribuer aux débats publics en lien avec divers enjeux sociaux. Quelles rationalités mettent-ils de l’avant et en quoi ces rationalités sont-elles en tension avec celles articulées par le gouvernement ? Pour répondre à cette question, nous avons analysé 10 mémoires récents déposés à l’Assemblée nationale du Québec. Nos analyses font ressortir quatre rationalités : politiques, économiques, scientifiques et éthiques. En levant le voile sur ces rationalités, nous révélons les tensions entre la logique bureaucratique et la logique professionnelle. Cet article contribue ainsi à démystifier un exercice de communication politique peu connu.
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 | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".