Uses of substitution treatments : comparative study : France, Switzerland and Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Durant les années 1990, en France, en Suisse et au Québec, de nouveaux médicaments ont reçu une autorisation de mise sur le marché, dans le cadre de la prise en charge de la dépendance aux opiacés. Vingt cinq ans plus tard, notre thèse interroge les usages qu’en font les personnes en traitement. A partir de la méthode biographique, nous étudions la substitution en terme d’« ajustements ». Les détournements de l’usage prescrit des TSO, étiquetés comme « mésusages » par les pouvoirs publics et un certain nombre de praticiens, apparaissent dès lors comme une modalité d’adaptation et de réappropriation du traitement. En évaluant les convergences et les divergences dans les pratiques et leurs effets, la comparaison de nos trois terrains d’enquête nous permet d’analyser les différents sens associés à la substitution, selon les contextes et les structures de soin au sein desquels l’usager est accueilli.
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 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".