MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1947245837 · doi:10.3917/flux.060.0069

La réingénierie québécoise version municipale

2005· article· fr· W1947245837 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marie‐Claude Prémont

Bibliographic record

VenueFlux · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPublicsArtPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Les dernières élections québécoises ont porté au pouvoir l’équipe libérale dirigée par Jean Charest. Lors de son discours inaugural, le Premier ministre du Québec a annoncé la mise en place d’un vaste programme de réingénierie de l’appareil public québécois, marqué par une vision conservatrice du rôle des pouvoirs publics. Ce programme articulé autour de six grands chantiers de réorganisation, s’éclaire à la lumière de projets de loi déposés en juin 2004. Or, l’étude de trois projets de loi permet de noter que les instances municipales seront au premier rang des organismes publics mis à contribution. L’ensemble des réseaux techniques de services publics des municipalités, depuis l’eau, les ordures, les services de prévention des incendies jusqu’aux réseaux routiers et de transport en commun, pourront être soumis à un régime de financement qui permettrait tant au gouvernement provincial que fédéral, d’imposer des conditions de partenariats avec public-privé. La diversification promise des sources de financement pour les instances locales du Québec pourrait bien être un cadeau empoisonné, tant pour les autorités locales que pour les populations desservies par les réseaux.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.002

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFluxSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207