Un instrument de mesure pour évaluer la situation financière des administrations locales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Les crises financières qu’ont connues plusieurs mégalopoles américaines au cours des 30 dernières années montrent l’importance de poser un diagnostic lucide, complet et crédible sur la santé financière des administrations municipales. Cependant, faute d’un modèle approprié, cette tâche se révèle difficile. L’auteur de l’article a conçu une mesure et un test de la situation financière des administrations municipales qui reposent sur trois aspects étudiés par l’Institut Canadien des Comptables Agréés : la viabilité, la souplesse et la vulnérabilité. Il a appliqué ce test à la ville de Montréal, pour comparer sa situation financière avec celle des municipalités de son agglomération urbaine. Le résultat montre que Montréal a une situation financière précaire comparativement aux villes de son agglomération. Sa viabilité financière est de plus en plus préoccupante. Sa souplesse financière va diminuant. Finalement, Montréal est vulnérable parce qu’elle ne maîtrise pas ses sources de fonds autant que les autres municipalités.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".