Le Vérificateur général du Québec et la vérification d'optimisation des ressources: évolution et perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Le Vérificateur général du Québec (VGQ) par ses vérifications d'optimisation des ressources (VOR) exerce, une influence croissante sur l'administration publique québécoise. La pertinence et la crédibilité sont les pierres d'assise de ses décisions. Pour être pertinent, le VGQ a adopté l'approche de la déficience appréhendée, qui cible des situations problématiques au lieu de cibler des entités. Tout au cours du processus de vérification, cette approche amène le VGQ à s'assurer que la déficience est réelle, sinon il interrompt la VOR La vérification implique notamment la comparaison de la situation avec une norme. Afin d'être crédible le vérificateur en réalisant une VOR, développe sa norme par une approche d'étalonnage. Nous avons constaté que le VGQ s'adapte à l'évolution de l'administration publique. La nouvelle Loi stir l'administration publique québécoise exige des rapports de performance des entités publiques. Si ces dernière jouent le rôe prévu par la loi, le VGQ devra probablement les certifier. Cette tâche, vu son arnpleur, constituera un véritable défi pour le VGQ. Abstract: The Quebec Auditor General (QAG), through value‐for‐money audits (VFMA), is having a growing impact on the Quebec public administration, with relevance and credibility being the cornerstones of its decisions. To be relevant, the QAG has adopted the “apprehended deficiency” approach that targets problem situations instead of entities. Accordingly, throughout the audit process, the QAG must ensure that the deficiency is real otherwise the VFMA must be terminated. The audit process includes a comparison of the situation against a standard. In addition, to be credible when conducting a VFMA, the auditor must develop a standard by means of benchmarking. We have found that the QAG is adapting to the changes taking place in public administration. Quebec's new Public Administration Act requires performance reports from public entities. If these reports play their statutory role, they will probably need to be certified by the QAG. This task, given its scope, will represent a real challenge for the QAG.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".