Les organismes communautaires au Québec : De la coexistence à la supplémentarité
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article présente les résultats d’une recherche effectuée auprès de 52 organismes du tiers secteur québécois sur la question des relations qu’ils entretiennent avec un partenaire du secteur public. Les objectifs de la recherche étaient doubles : 1) élaborer un outil d’autoévaluation validé des relations entre organismes du tiers secteur et l’État et 2) procéder à une analyse transversale des informations produites par les 52 organismes du tiers secteur ayant participé à la validation de l’outil d’autoévaluation. Les résultats démontrent que les relations entre les deux groupes d’acteurs se sont stabilisées et même améliorées depuis vingt ans. Cependant, la contribution des organismes du tiers secteur est encore largement orientée vers la coproduction de services publics davantage que sur la coconstruction de politiques sociales destinées à une population commune. Abstract This article presents the results of a study involving 52 nonprofit organizations in Quebec focused on their relationships with public-sector partners. The objectives of the study were twofold: 1) to develop and validate a self-evaluation tool to assess relationships between third-sector organizations and the State and 2) to conduct a transversal analysis of information obtained from the 52 nonprofit organizations that took part in the validation of the self-evaluation tool. The results show that relationships between the two categories of stakeholders stabilized and even improved over the previous twenty years. However, the contribution of nonprofit organizations is still largely oriented toward the coproduction of public services rather than the shared construction of social policies for a common population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".