Open Government Architecture: The evolution of De Jure Standards, Consortium Standards, and Open Source Software
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conducted for the Treasury Board of Québec, this study seeks to present recent contributions to the evolution, within an enterprise architecture context, of de jure and de facto standards by various actors in the milieu, industrial consortia, and international standardization committees active in open source software.In order to be able to achieve its goals of delivering services to citizens and society, the Government of Québec must integrate its computer systems to create a service oriented open architecture.Following in the footsteps of various other governments and the European Community, such an integration will require elaboration of an interoperability framework, i.e. a structured set of de jure standards, de facto standards, specifications, and policies allowing computer systems to interoperate.Thus, we recommend that the Government of Québec:Pursue its endeavours to elaborate an interoperability framework for its computer systems that is based on open de jure and de facto standards. This framework should not only reflect the criteria enumerated in this study and apply to internal computer systems, but it should also extend to Web services supplied to organizations outside of the government. This framework should explicitly prioritize open source de jure and de facto standards and include a policy covering free software. The interoperability framework should initially draw on that of the state of Massachusetts. In the medium term, is should be as comprehensive as that of the British government.Integrate this interoperability framework into its enterprise architecture.Publish this interoperability framework with its enterprise architecture.Specify this interoperability framework in its calls for tenders. Elaborate a policy of compliance with this framework for all new applications.
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 | 0.036 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".