Horizontalité et gouvernance décentralisée: les conditions de collaboration dans le contexte de l'action communautaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire: Cet article s'interroge sur les formes de gouvernance qui caractérisent le secteur communautaire en s'appuyant sur l'étude de deux cas de partenariats locaux initiés par l'organisme Québec en forme (QEF) dans les régions de l'Outaouais et de la Mauricie. La participation croissante des organismes communautaires à la prestation des services publics met en relief l'importance de la collaboration et du partenariat interorganisationnels dans le cadre d'une gouvernance plus horizontale. L'article présente certaines difficultés posées par la construction d'une telle gouvernance dans le secteur communautaire. Le poids des structures de pouvoir traditionnelles, de même que les innovations proposées dans la littérature sur la gouvernance et l'horizontalité (élargissement des partenariats, développement de nouveaux objectifs partagés, etc.), ont beaucoup de difficultéà prendre assise dans la pratique communautaire. Abstract: This article examines the forms of governance that characterize the community sector, referring to two case studies of local partnerships initiated by the group “Québec en forme” (QEF) in the Outaouais and Mauricie regions. The increasing participation of community organizations in the delivery of public services highlights the importance of cross‐jurisdictional cooperation and partnerships within the framework of a more horizontal governance. The article presents some of the challenges surrounding governance construction in the community sector. The weight of traditional power structures, as well as the innovations proposed in the literature on governance and the implementation of a horizontal approach (securing broader partnerships, developing new shared objectives, etc.), are not easily adopted in community practice.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".