Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This report examines the case for the establishment of an honours system in Ireland. An honours system is a series of formalised awards given by the state. The report begins by examining the history of attempts to establish an honours system in Ireland and includes a discussion of the legal constitutional issues relating to such a system. It then identifies a range of different types of honours systems in different countries and finds that each of them has Irish counterparts. We then examine the kind of system, in generalised terms, that might be considered for Ireland. Following this we look at the specific cases of awards offered in the United Kingdom and Canada, going into the history and structure of awards in both countries to determine whether they offer any lessons for Ireland. Finally, the report returns to Ireland and offers recommendations on creating an Irish honour system based on international best practice. The report also provides a detailed appendix outlining the various awards offered by OECD countries, differing kinds of nomination forms and detailed graphics showing how an honour is awarded in various countries. The report first examines the history of the Irish case, through parliamentary debates and a number of constitutional reports. These reports found that there is no impediment in the Irish Constitution to establishing an honour system. We then outline a methodology for examining awards in an Irish context, where restricting the awards we examine to state awards alone is justified. The report notes that Ireland provides a wide range of awards informally, but that these do not have official state sanction. Nonetheless there are similarities between these awards and those provided by other countries. The report divides honours into four categories: civilian awards, exceptional merit awards, diplomatic awards and military awards. The report notes that there are multiple relevant Irish awards, but that nevertheless Ireland still lacks an honour that could show state recognition. The report also notes areas where this has caused problems for Ireland. The standard structure for awards in other OECD countries is also explored. The report then analyses award systems more generally. We suggest for Ireland an internal recognition system that is focused on the recognition of individuals for their achievements. Following the establishment of these general recommendations two case studies are chosen and examined. Both case studies offer policymakers similar lessons for the establishment of awards. Both Canada and Britain prioritised two particular areas – diversity and inclusiveness – and structured their award systems around these principles. In both cases pursuing these principles seems to have led to broad public support for the honours systems established. Finally, the report outlines policy recommendations for Ireland. Appendices available at http://www.ucd.ie/geary/static/publications/Honours_System_for_Ireland_Appendices.docx
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,015 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,015 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».