La fonction d'évaluation dans l'administration publique québécoise : analyse de la cohérence du système d'actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire Cet article analyse la fonction d'évaluation dans l'administration publique du Québec au cours des années 2000 comme un système organisé d'actions (valeurs, environnement, ressources et modalités, pratique, effets) avec ses cohérences et incohérences. Trois constats émergent : les activités de soutien de la pratique évaluative de la part des ministères centraux sont quasiment absentes, la transparence auprès des citoyens dans le processus évaluatif est peu présente, la réalisation et l'utilisation d'évaluations de portée stratégique parait peu fréquente. Cet article met en évidence certaines cohérences et incohérences d'une fonction de gestion, et propose une façon directe et systématique de souligner les points à améliorer. Abstract In this article, we analyze the evaluation function within the Quebec public administration during the 2000s as an organized action system (values, environment, resources and procedures, practice, impacts) with its consistencies and inconsistencies. Three findings emerge: the support that central agencies give to the evaluation practice is almost non‐existent; the transparency of the evaluation process for the citizens is barely noticeable; and the undertaking and use of the strategic use of evaluations seem rare. This article brings the attention to some consistencies/inconsistencies of the management function, and suggests a direct and systematic way to highlight what needs to be improved.
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 | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".