L’évaluation des organismes communautaires. L’exemple d’un partenariat avec l’État : entre l’espoir et la désillusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se veut une réflexion sur l’évaluation des organismes communautaires1 qui a donné lieu à un long processus de négociation entre les acteurs du communautaire et l’État. Notre réflexion s’inscrit dans une démarche analytique à la lumière des composantes du champ spécifique de l’évaluation de programmes, afin de mettre en évidence quelques glissements de sens qu’ont connus certaines notions au cours de ce partenariat, plus précisément la relation entre le suivi de gestion et l’évaluation. Ce faisant, nous faisons ressortir les limites du modèle proposé, soit celui de l’évaluation participative de quatrième génération. Par ces considérations issues de la pratique, nous souhaitons consolider l’expérience du partenariat entre les organismes communautaires et l’État en ce qui a trait au dossier de l’évaluation.
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 | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".