Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of this paper is public financing of university education in Quebec, which is analysed from the point of view of scarcity: even governments must submit to this reality. Our argument is built around three questions: How much should society spend? How should the burden be distributed between students or their relatives and governments? Which form should the public contribution take? Answers to these questions lead to proposals of reform. Ours pay attention to the distribution of burden and the form of public spending much more than to the level of overall spending. Student fees should be increased in Quebec, and reflect the varying costs of different programs. Student aid should also be increased but given more selectively, to those students who are more sensitive to price. A larger access to loans should be considered only on the condition that these loans cease to be subsidized. Dans ce texte, nous considérons le financement public de l'enseignement universitaire au Québec. L'angle retenu est la rareté, à laquelle même les gouvernements sont soumis. Notre propos s'organise autour de trois questions : quel effort devrait consentir la société québécoise? Comment répartir le fardeau de cet effort entre les principaux acteurs : les étudiants ou leurs proches, et les gouvernements? Quelle forme donner à la contribution publique? La réponse à ces questions nous mène à suggérer des pistes de réforme. Plus que le niveau des dépenses, ce sont la répartition du fardeau et la forme de l'intervention publique qui devraient être modifiées en priorité. Nous sommes favorables à l'augmentation et à la modulation des droits de scolarité. L'aide financière aux étudiants devrait aussi être augmentée, mais continuer d'être réservée aux plus démunis; l'accès accru à cette aide ne devrait se faire qu'au prix de la disparition de la subvention aux prêts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 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".