Le Comité de transition de Québec ou lorsque l'argumentation technique l'emporte sur la rhétorique politique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article porte sur le Comité de transition de Québec. Constitué de personnes non élues nommées par le gouvernement, ce comité avait pour mandat de préparer l’an 1 de la nouvelle ville de Québec qui a vu le jour le 1 er janvier 2002. Comme les travaux du comité se sont déroulés dans un contexte politique et électoral marqué par l’opposition vigoureuse des maires de banlieue et de certains groupes de citoyens aux regroupements municipaux forcés, il est intéressant de se demander si le jeu des acteurs politiques a pu influencer les décisions du comité. Malgré les tentatives de politisation de certaines décisions, dont la nomination des cadres, la délimitation des districts électoraux et la confection du premier budget, l’étude montre que l’argumentation technique a réussi à l’emporter sur la rhétorique politique des acteurs partisans.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".