Méthodologie d’analyse conceptuelle appliquée: Comment définir le concept de ‘partenariat public–privé’ dans une perspective juridique et transdisciplinaire?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing use of public–private partnerships (PPP) as a means of delivering public services or constructing public infrastructures draws growing interest in the legal community. The ambiguity and lack of consensus surrounding the content of PPP as a concept, leads the researcher to refer to various disciplinary sources. Widely encouraged in law, transdisciplinarity often suffers methodological insufficiencies when comes the time to define transdisciplinary concepts. The authors revisit the interpretation methods developed by the courts, and propose a complementary conceptual analysis framework. The developed framework is then applied to the emerging concept of public–private partnership, as it is used and defined in various disciplines. The paper demonstrates the feasibility and desirability to provide a transdisciplinary perspective to legal concepts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it