Les appels à projets, une tentative d’articuler régulation de l’offre et projet associatif
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À la légitimité des pouvoirs publics pour organiser l’offre médico-sociale, de nature politique, stratégique et technique, répond une légitimité associative citoyenne, de projet et de proximité avec les usagers. Les appels à projets sont nés de la volonté d’organiser l’offre de façon plus cohérente et transparente, tout en laissant une grande part à l’initiative des acteurs. Les critiques sur des appels à projets bureaucratiques, sous-financés, favorisant les structures importantes dans le médico-social et épuisant les plus petites dans la politique de la ville, doivent être lues au prisme des tensions générales de financement du secteur et de la montée des concurrences inter--associatives. La nouvelle stratégie de transformation de l’offre médico-sociale permet aujourd’hui d’assouplir les règles du jeu, en lien étroit avec les acteurs en place.
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 | 0.019 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".