Du tournant participatif des administrations à la bureaucratisation de la démocratie participative. Étude à partir du cas français.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se propose de contribuer à la réflexion sur le tournant participatif de l’action publique et de l’administration en étudiant le profil et le travail des agents publics spécialisés dans la participation citoyenne au sein des administrations locales françaises. A rebours des discours qui promeuvent la modernisation participative de l’administration, l’analyse de l’activité quotidienne des agents publics en charge de la participation permet de saisir les dynamiques de bureaucratisation de la participation citoyenne. Faute de bouleverser les routines administratives, les agents spécialisés inventent de nouvelles routines essentiellement destinées à maintenir en place des dispositifs, même lorsque ces derniers n’ont peu ou pas d’effet sur la conduite de l’action publique. Remarques à l’intention des praticiens Cet article éclaire les processus de mise en administration de la participation citoyenne qui s’opère en France selon une double logique de spécialisation et de diffusion, et analyse les aspects concrets du travail participatif dans les administrations.
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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".