Vers une bureaucratie représentative. La promotion de la représentation et de la diversité linguistiques dans l'administration fédérale en Suisse et au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé. Sous l'angle du concept de bureaucratie représentative, le présent article compare la gestion des enjeux liés à la participation des différentes communautés linguistiques dans l'administration publique de deux États multilingues : le Canada et la Suisse. À la suite de la mobilisation politique autour du clivage linguistique, des stratégies de promotion du plurilinguisme ont été adoptées dans les deux pays. La stratégie canadienne mise sur l'égalité de traitement des fonctionnaires anglophones et francophones. La Suisse poursuit quant à elle l'objectif de la représentation des différentes communautés linguistiques dans la fonction publique. Ces différences de fond s'expliquent, entre autres, par la nature du régime linguistique en place et par le contexte de démocratie consociationnelle en Suisse. La participation proportionnelle des communautés linguistiques au sein de l'administration fédérale est globalement atteinte dans les deux pays. Cependant, au niveau du fonctionnement interne, une logique de rationalité linguistique exerce une pression sur les groupes minoritaires pour qu'ils adoptent la langue majoritaire. Abstract. Drawing on the concept of representative bureaucracy, this article examines how two multi-lingual states—Canada and Switzerland—deal with issues related to the participation of different linguistic communities in the federal public service. Following a political mobilisation of the linguistic cleavage, strategies to promote multilingualism in the public service have been adopted in both countries. The Canadian strategy focuses on equal treatment of Anglophones and Francophones in the public service. In Switzerland, adequate representation of the linguistic communities is the primary goal. These differences are explained by the characteristics of the linguistic regimes in each of the two countries, as well as by the peculiarities of consociational democracy in Switzerland. In both countries, the linguistic origins of public administration staff, overall, mirrors the proportions of the linguistic communities in the wider society. Within administrative units, however, linguistic diversity is hampered by the logics of language rationality, where minorities are under pressure to communicate in the language of the majority.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".