Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Après toutes grandes réformes administrative gouvernementales ou dans le secteur privé, se trouvent des personnes dont on s'occupe parfois a posteriori. Le présent article ne rend pas compte des difficultés et des exigences de la mise en place, par le gouvernement du Québec, d'un nouveau cadre de gestion pour la Fonction publique. L'auteur se penche plutôt sur la réforme pour réfléhir à ses conditions de réussite, puis aux exigences de l'organisation prévisible pour l'an 2000. Daprès lui, les conditions de réussite consistent à moderniser la gestion courante, à connaître les clientèles pour mieux les servir, à connaître notre environnement, à privilégier l'information ouverte et généreuse et à placer la personne au cceur de notre action. Après une présentation des caractéristiques de l'organisation de l'an 2000, on en conclut que le simple exercice de l'autorité ne saurait suffire pour changer les choses en profondeur car nous vivons dans une société du savoir et de l'intelligence. Abstract: After any major administrative reform of either the government or the private sector, there are people whose concerns are in many instances only dealt with as an afterthought. This article does not deal with the difficulties and exigencies of the implementation, by the Government of Quebec, of a new public‐service management framework. Instead, the author analyses the conditions for successful reform and the foreseeable organizational requirements for the year 2000. According to him, success will depend on upgrading day‐to‐day management, knowing the various client categories in order to better serve them, knowing our environment, favouring open, generous information, and cent ring our actions on the individual. After presenting the organizational features of the year 2000, the article concludes that the exercise of authority alone cannot bring about in‐depth change, since we live in a society based on knowledge and intelligence.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".