Pour en finir avec le lobbying : comment les institutions canadiennes influencent l’action des groupes d’intérêts*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Influencés par une littérature américaine abondante, les Canadiens ramènent trop aisément l’ensemble des actions des groupes d’intérêts à du lobbying. Adoptant une perspective institutionnaliste, cet article affirme pourtant que les groupes d’intérêts au Canada sont appelés à jouer un rôle plus significatif en matière d’élaboration des politiques publiques. C’est donc dans l’optique de mieux rendre compte de la contribution des groupes d’intérêts canadiens que ce texte propose une typologie de leurs actions. De manière plus précise, l’auteur suggère que les institutions parlementaires issues du modèle de Westminster, le fédéralisme exécutif et les réseaux de politiques publiques encouragent les groupes à ne pas limiter leurs actions à la transmission de demandes spécifiques mais à mettre leurs connaissances et leurs expertises au service des gouvernants.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".