La contractualisation de l’action publique: contrat juridique ou contrat social ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La diversité des formes que revêt la contractualisation de l’action publique en matière environnementale dénote l’influence concurrente de deux modèles : le contrat social et le contrat juridique. L’auteure met en lumière la double ambiguïté qui sous-tend l’idée de contractualisation. Elle est tantôt inclusive, se rapprochant de l’idéal du contrat social, tantôt exclusive, se rapportant au modèle du contrat juridique. Par ailleurs, la contractualisation est parfois la source directe de normes juridiques, tout comme elle peut aussi demeurer en dehors du droit. Cette double ambivalence forme la base d’une schématisation possible des formes de la contractualisation de l’action publique, dont l’auteure propose de distinguer quatre groupes : les ententes bilatérales, les contrats collectifs, la participation publique et la consultation politique. Enfin, l’auteure esquisse le régime des ententes bilatérales entre l’Administration et les administrés, selon qu’elles ont ou non un caractère juridique.
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 | 0.017 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".