MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025838078 · doi:10.7202/042887ar

Legal Issues Arising from Protectionist Government Procurement Policies in Canada and the United States

2005· article· fr· W2025838078 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Denis Lemieux

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Aviation
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPublicsLawPoliticsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les marchés publics confèrent aux différents paliers gouvernementaux une force de frappe qu'ils sont susceptibles d'utiliser pour atteindre des objectifs économiques et sociaux en plus d'obtenir des biens et services de qualité à un prix raisonnable. Ceci donne lieu à l'élaboration et à la mise en oeuvre de politiques d'achats. Ces politiques prennent rarement la forme de lois et de règlements mais sont adoptées le plus souvent par voie de directives, d'énoncés de politique et de pratiques administratives. Toutefois, ceci ne signifie pas qu'il n'existe pas de cadre juridique des politiques d'achats. Les dispositions de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 relatives au commerce interprovincial et international, de même que les droits à l'égalité et à la mobilité enchâssés dans la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, servent de cadre juridique minimal aux politiques d'achats. À ces normes s'ajoutent les obligations internationales du Canada à l'intérieur du cadre de l'Accord général du G A TT et, pour le Gouvernement fédéral, le Code des marchés publics adopté lors du Tokyo Round. La mise en oeuvre de l'Accord de libre-échange canado-américain viendra apporter une nouvelle limite à l'autonomie des initiateurs de politiques d'achats publics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.860

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0310.019
Scholarly communication0.0160.002
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicInternational Law and AviationFrench-language works237,207