La <i>Politique culturelle du Québec</i> de 1992 et l'Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) : Une étude de cas dans le domaine de la culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé. Cet article porte sur la Politique culturelle du Québec, adoptée en 1992. Outre le fait d'avoir défini une nouvelle mission pour le ministère des Affaires culturelles et modifié ses responsabilités, cette politique constitue un changement majeur dans les orientations gouvernementales, notamment par la création du Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec et par la mise en place de nouveaux partenariats avec des ministères et sociétés d'État ainsi qu'avec le monde municipal. Un des objectifs de cette étude est de démontrer l'originalité de l'Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) pour l'analyse des politiques culturelles. Développé par Paul A. Sabatier et Hank Jenkins-Smith, l'ACF se concentre particulièrement sur le processus résultant du changement dans les croyances et les actions des acteurs impliqués. Abstract. This article concerns the Politique culturelle du Québec which was adopted in 1992. Besides having outlined a new mission for the Ministry of Cultural Affairs of Quebec, this policy constitutes a major change in governmental orientation, notably through the creation of the Conseil des arts et des lettres du Québec (Provincial Arts Council) and through the establishment of new partnerships with other ministries, public corporations and municipal authorities. One of the objectives of this study is to demonstrate the originality of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) in the analysis of cultural policies. Developed by Paul A. Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith, the ACF focuses primarily on the process resulting from changes in the beliefs and actions of the actors involved.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".