Le comité de vérification : un rôle essentiel à la gouvernance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé La confiance des investisseurs a été mise à l’épreuve au cours des dernières années. Une des stratégies pour restaurer la confiance dans les marchés financiers passe par l’amélioration de la qualité des divulgations financières. C’est dans cette optique que le comité de vérification a pris une importance stratégique dans la gouvernance des sociétés ouvertes. Cet article propose de regarder la composition, les responsabilités et le fonctionnement du comité de vérification tout en faisant référence à la réglementation canadienne et aux différences les plus importantes entre celle-ci et la législation américaine. De plus, l’impact des nouvelles exigences sera éclairé par des commentaires tirés d’entrevues réalisées avec deux présidents de comités de vérification.
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 | 0.018 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".