Bibliographic record
Abstract
En mobilisant une large enquête qualitative conduite à l’échelle locale, l’article examine les rationalités entremêlées du travail mené au sein des cellules préfectorales de prévention de la radicalisation (CPRAF) en France. Il réinterroge l’hypothèse d’un processus de sécuritisation du travail sociosanitaire induit par le paradigme préventif de la lutte contre le terrorisme. L’analyse montre plus précisément que la logique de sécuritisation ne se restreint pas ici à l’enrôlement des acteurs psychosociaux dans la détection des personnes constituées comme des menaces pour la sécurité et l’ordre publics. Elle passe plutôt par un brouillage des mandats professionnels au sein de ces partenariats. Le contrôle préventif des populations « à risque » et l’accompagnement éducatif ou thérapeutique des individus dits vulnérables apparaissent en ce sens comme des objectifs placés tour à tour au service de l’autre, transformant la conception traditionnelle du soin et de l’accompagnement social.
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 | 0.024 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".