Les systèmes locaux de protection sociale. Étude de cas dans le Grand Sud malgache
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La protection sociale est aujourd’hui un enjeu central dans la protection des populations. Cet article propose un concept original pour analyser la diversité des formes de protection sociale à l’échelle locale : le système local de protection sociale. Ce concept permet d’analyser d’une part l’encastrement social des pratiques de protection sociale, d’autre part l’articulation entre les pratiques formelles et informelles de protection sociale. Dans un deuxième temps, cette étude propose une mise en application de ce concept dans la région Tandroy. En s’appuyant sur une méthode mixte et des données originales, l’article met en évidence la diversité des pratiques de protection sociale (formelle, informelle, semi-formelle), l’encastrement social des pratiques de protection sociale et l’ampleur des vulnérabilités locales. Cet article permet deux contributions majeures dans la compréhension des formes de protection sociale dans les régions en situation d’extrême pauvreté sociale : (i) un cadre d’analyse permettant d’étudier la diversité des pratiques de protection sociale, l’encastrement social de ces pratiques ainsi que les rapports de force qui sous-tendent ces pratiques, et (ii) une description fine et précise des dispositifs de protection sociale effectivement accessibles dans le Sud de Madagascar.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".