Lobbyistes et législation sur le lobbyisme : que nous apprend la récente expérience québécoise?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Dans un contexte où un nombre croissant de gouvernements, en Europe comme en Amérique du Nord, entendent resserrer les règles en matière d'encadrement du lobbyisme, les auteurs se penchent sur les réactions des lobbyistes québécois envers la loi sur la transparence et l'éthique en matière de lobbyisme, adoptée au Québec en 2002. Reposant sur l'examen de près de trente entretiens menés un an après l'adoption de la loi ainsi que sur celui d'un imposant corpus documentaire, leur analyse fait ressortir que les modalités de la Loi, en particulier celles liées à l'inscription au registre des lobbyistes, entraînent une lourdeur bureaucratique peu propice au respect de la législation. Il ressort également que la loi, dont le principal objectif est d'affermir la confiance des citoyens envers les titulaires de charges publiques et des institutions démocratiques au sein desquelles ils œuvrent, influencera sans doute très peu la perception de la population à l'endroit de l'intégrité des acteurs de la sphère politique, y compris les lobbyistes. Par ailleurs, il semble qu'une simplification du processus d'inscription au registre, ainsi que l'élargissement du nombre de personnes assujetties à la loi (les organisations sans but lucratif étant nommément visées) soient des mesures susceptibles de favoriser la hausse de confiance des citoyens envers les institutions démocratiques et les acteurs qui y sont associés. Abstract: In a context where an increasing number of governments, in both Europe and North America, are planning to tighten the lobbying rules, the authors focus on the reactions of Quebec lobbyists to the Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Act, which was enacted in Quebec in 2002. Based on an examination of close to thirty interviews conducted one year after the enactment of the act, as well as the study of an important corpus of documents, their analysis indicates that the terms of the act, specifically those with reference to the registration in the Registry of Lobbyists, create bureaucratic red tape that makes enforcement of the law unlikely. It is also clear that the act, the main purpose of which is to build the public's trust in those who hold public office and the democratic institutions in which they work, will have presumably very little influence over the public's perception of the integrity of the players in the political sphere, including lobbyists. Furthermore, it would seem that simplifying the registry process, as well as broadening the scope of the legislation's applicability (specifically to include non‐profit organizations), would have the effect of increasing the public's level of confidence in the democratic institutions and the players associated with them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".