Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article [1] traite de l’imputabilite des dirigeants publics dans un contexte ou la gestion des interfaces entre elus, fonctionnaires et managers de haut rang des organisations publiques se complexifie sans cesse. Les auteurs proposent d’abord une grille conceptuelle qui permet de saisir cette complexite generatrice de tensions a quatre niveaux : institutionnel, organisationnel, managerial et artefactuel. Ils l’illustrent ensuite plus concretement en expliquant la trajectoire historique de la notion d’imputabilite et des facons de la concretiser au sein du systeme de gouvernance publique du Quebec. Ils plaident au fond en faveur d’un jumelage des approches institutionnelle et instrumentale de l’imputabilite politico-administrative et manageriale. Celle-ci devrait etre concue et deployee en pretant particulierement attention aux dilemmes, paradoxes et incertitudes que l’action publique genere inevitablement.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".