Vers une révision du processus et du cadre d'élaboration de la décision administrative au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the authors examine various models for reviewing the system and procedural framework of administrative action in Québec. Firstly, they explore the solutions previously advanced as far as Québec is concerned, then those that have been adopted in other jurisdictions. Next, after identifying the principle decision-making agents of the administration, they enumerate the other factors to be considered in devising a model system, such as the assigned powers of the decision-makers, their procedure, the rules controlling their decision-making, and the establishement by the decision-makers of norms governing the exercise of their discretionary powers. These parameters having been determined the authors go on to evaluate, from various aspects, those solutions that have already been proposed and also others which offer themselves for consideration. In that regard, after discussing the classification of administrative bodies, they analyse the merits of a single or dual jurisdictional authority from the structural and constitutional perspective ; they pause to examine the very notion of administrative authority before going on to deal with the issue of an overall control of administrative bodies, such control being exercised by means of an Administrative Council. Then, after discussing the power given to an administrative body or agency to review its own decisions, they analyse the controversial issue of administrative procedure ant the codification of those rules, and go on to propose, as a possible solution, a flexible codification that is restrictive in part yet adaptable to the individual circumstances of the bodies concerned. In concluding that the existing patchwork of administrative decisionmaking must be satisfactorily resolved, and before indicating what corrective action should be studied, they attempt to identify the questions that have to be answered before undertaking review of the system and procedural framework of administrative action, the need for which review having been seen as imperative right from the outset.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| 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".