MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074722725 · doi:10.3917/cris.2007.0005

Finances publiques à Bruxelles : analyse et enjeux

2009· article· fr· W2074722725 on OpenAlexaff
Philippe Cattoir, Joost Vaeser, Magali Verdonck, Géraldine Van der Stichele, Pol Zimmer

Bibliographic record

VenueCourrier hebdomadaire du CRISP · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLocal Government Finance and Decentralization
Canadian institutionsQuebec Rehabilitation Research Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSloganHumanitiesPhilosophyPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La réforme de l’État en préparation pourrait avoir des répercussions importantes pour Bruxelles, notamment sur le plan fiscal et financier. De plus, la crise économique actuelle pourrait affecter de manière particulièrement importante les recettes de la Région et de ses communes. Il importe donc de bien connaître la situation des finances publiques bruxelloises avant de s’engager dans une réforme. Le présent Courrier hebdomadaire porte sur la Région, les commissions communautaires et les 19 communes. Les difficultés budgétaires de ces institutions sont souvent évoquées, mais on en offre rarement, comme ici, un panorama systématique et synthétique, accompagné point par point de pistes de solutions possibles indépendantes de tout slogan politique. Si l’analyse aborde en priorité les questions de financement et de fiscalité, elle touche aussi à certaines questions relatives aux dépenses publiques et à la gouvernance. La solidarité intrarégionale est prise en compte, de même que la solidarité avec les deux autres régions. Les conclusions soulignent les défis et les avancées possibles ou souhaitables, dans les domaines de finances publics examinés.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.299 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCourrier hebdomadaire du CRISPSame topicLocal Government Finance and DecentralizationFrench-language works237,207