Les techniques actuelles de contrôle démocratique et de participation aux choix énergétiques généraux au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Techniques of democratic control and public participation in general energy choices have recently been the concern of many, especially in Quebec. Firstly, over the last ten years, the Parliamentary Committee on Energy and Resources has been the forum of important debates and serious discussions. Members of the National Assembly have been able to follow to a certain extent the rapid evolution of energy policies and to articulate the concerns of the general public. Those responsible for Crown corporations (Hydro, SOQUIP) have had to account for their projects and to report regularly. Through public hearings, various economic agents have had the opportunity to present their views on many occasions. The second important technique, the use of an indépendant regulatory agency, in this case, the Quebec Gas and Energy Board, with a rather limited jurisdiction, has been the centre of discussions. Some see in that formula an adequate channel of public participation ; others have some hesitation about accepting the broadening of the role of an indépendant regulatory agency, where important issues have to be dealt between the Minister and major Crown corporations.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".