Gestion des ressources humaines et Nouveau Management Public: Opinions de gestionnaires federaux et québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Comme Ies gestionnaires jouent un rôle prépondérant dans I'application et la réhissitc dcs programmes gouvernementaux, nous en avons interrogé plusieurs wuvrant dans les fonctions publiques fédérale et québécoise ‐ tous situés au Québec ‐ pour connaître leurs opinions sur le Nouveau Management Public (nmp). À priori, nous pensions qu'ils seraient favorables à I'introduction de cette nouvelle façon de gerer. Toutefois, une partie d'entre eux ne considèrent pas les techniques de gestion du personnel déoulant du nmr aussi favorablement qu'escompté. Certains résukats surprennent: nous avons noté des divergences d'opinion significatives entre Ics réponscs des gestionnaires du palier fédéral et du palier provincial. Nous observons ainsi que les gestionnaires fédéraux sont généralement plus cnclins que leurs homo‐logues québécois à approuver et à utiliser des techniques managérielles découlant du nmp et nous avons tenté de déouvrir pourquoi. Nous avons développé une explication qui inclut un point de vue historico‐institutionnel pour comprendre Ies différences observées entre les visions des gestionnaires des deux paliers gouvernementaux. Tandis que les gestionnaires fédéraux ont une longue expérience dcs rbformes managériellcs, I'csprit égalitaire des réformes bureaucratiques des années 1960 et 1970 aurait pousséIes gestionnaires québécois à rejeter I'individualisme com‐petitif du nmp. Abstract: Since managers play a predominant role in the implementation and thus the success of government programs, the authors interviewed several in the Canadian and Quebec public services, all working in Quebec, to learn their opinions about the new public management (npm). It was expected that managers would be inclined to favour the introduction of this new form of state administration. However, a number of them did not view favourably some of the new techniques of personnel management stemming from the npm. Federal managers interviewed were generally more inclined to favour and to use such techniques. In an effort to explain the observtd differences, the authors have developed a historical‐institutional argument. While federal administrators have a long experience of managerial reforms, the egalitarian bureaucratic ethos of the sixties and seventies may have led Quebec managers to resist the individualist and competitive techniques of the npm.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".