Le signalement dans la Loi sur la santé publique : notions juridiques, scientifiques et éthiques entourant le signalement et les interventions de santé publique en découlant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé: L'adoption, en 2001, de la Loi sur la santé publique confirme les quatre champs d'action principaux de la Santé publique: la promotion, la prévention, la surveillance et la protection de la santé de la population. On retrouve dans cette loi la notion de signalement comme source de données de la vigie sanitaire qui doit être exercée par les autorités de santé publique. Il s'agit d'un concept nouveau et unique. Cette notion est, à ce jour, comprise de manière différente selon les intervenants consultés dans les Directions de santé publique du Québec. De plus, la notion de menace à la santé, objet initial du signalement, est également ambiguë. Celle-ci peut être abordée sous l'angle de la gestion des risques afin d'en arriver à une décision acceptable en matière de protection de la santé de la population. Finalement, il existe lors des interventions de protection en santé publique une dualité entre le bien commun et les droits individuels. Au-delà du juridique, c'est l'éthique qui peut résoudre ce conflit afin de mieux cerner et clarifier le «signalement» tel qu'introduit dans la Loi sur la santé publique, il sera abordé sous trois aspects : légal, scientifique et éthique.||Abstract: In 2001, the Public Health Law was adopted and confirmed the four essential public health functions: promotion, prevention, surveillance and public health protection. The new and unique concept of notification of public health threat was introduced. This notion is understood differently by the Public Health Department professionals. Threat as the origin of notification is also misunderstood. Risk management can be useful to analyse the notion of health threat in taking an acceptable decision in public health protection. Also exists, within the public health interventions, a duality between common good and individual rights. Beyond the legal aspects, ethics can solve this conflict. To define more precisely the "reporting" concept, it will be discussed in three aspects: legal, scientific and ethics.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".