MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583915132 · doi:10.3917/inso.150.0056

L'apport des expérimentations dans l'évaluation de l'impact des dispositifs publics

2009· article· fr· W1583915132 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInformations sociales · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMathematics
TopicAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPublicsPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Les expérimentations constituent un outil performant pour mesurer les effets des dispositifs publics. Trois exemples types de schémas possibles de mise en œuvre d’évaluation par expérimentation sont ici présentés. La rigueur du tirage aléatoire pour sélectionner la population, le suivi de la situation des individus intégrés dans le programme et la puissance de l’expérimentation (c’est-à-dire sa capacité à mesurer les plus petits effets) sont autant d’étapes nécessaires à sa réussite.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.384
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.005
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.221 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it