MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175303630 · doi:10.3917/lps.173.0102

La reconfiguration de l’État social à travers les pratiques d’organisation (Québec) et d’intervention communautaire (Catalogne)

2017· article· fr· W3175303630 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jean-Baptiste Leclercq, Sophie Coulombe, Marta Llobet Estany, François Soucisse

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Politiques Sociales · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsComputer Research Institute of MontréalUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Partant de la définition commune de ce qu’est un État social, cet article analyse sa reconfiguration par l’étude des pratiques d’intervention sociale que sont l’organisation (au Québec) et l’intervention (en Catalogne) communautaires. C’est à travers la transformation de ces pratiques et de leurs contextes marqués – à différentes échelles – par la « crise » et des politiques d’austérité, que les auteur.e.s tracent les contours d’un État social en train de se redessiner. Organisateur.trice.s et intervenant.e.s communautaires font office de pivots entre des institutions publiques et la « communauté », prise en compte dans ce texte comme catégorie d’action publique ou expérience commune. L’émergence de nouveaux acteurs, tels des fondations privées ou des collectifs issus de mouvements sociaux, modifie la conception des politiques publiques et déplace les frontières de l’État social. Dans des contextes où celui-ci est fragilisé, des expériences qui apportent des réponses collectives à des problèmes sociaux font preuve de créativité sociale.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.491

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.018
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Politiques SocialesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207