Le secteur du handicap : entre innovation et standardisation organisationnelle - L’exemple d’une association française
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’organisation du champ du handicap en France subit des changements règlementaires et institutionnels pour répondre aux nouveaux besoins de la part des usagers. Les organisations créées par les familles sont au coeur de ces dynamiques et elles doivent s’adapter. Notre hypothèse principale est que les logiques institutionnelles existantes sont, bien souvent, en inadéquation avec les aspirations des personnes accompagnées. Face à cette situation, des acteurs associatifs entament un processus de transformation de l’offre de services, mais celui-ci rencontre des résistances au changement. Notre contribution analyse une association française, emblématique par sa taille, son histoire et son projet dans le secteur du handicap. Nous proposons de questionner dans quelle mesure le développement de nouveaux services d’accompagnement à la vie sociale cristallise les mutations actuelles dans le secteur du handicap. Notre ancrage théorique s’appuie sur l’analyse organisationnelle et stratégique des associations.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".