MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147951639 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.1888

Les faits ne parlent pas d’eux-mêmes : thèses et théories dans l’analyse de la commission Gomery

2006· article· fr· W2147951639 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Denis Saint‐Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEuropean Political History Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pour l’auteur, l’une des questions les plus intéressantes à se poser à propos de la commission Gomery n’est pas de savoir si l’on se range dans le camp des « pour » ou des « contre », mais plutôt de poser la question du « comment » : comment la commission Gomery est-elle arrivée à faire les constatations présentées dans son premier rapport ? À quels théorie, concept ou cadre normatif le juge Gomery a-t-il eu recours pour interpréter et donner un sens aux nombreux faits que la commission a recueillis au cours de ses audiences ? D’autres interprétations sont-elles possibles ? C’est à ces questions, et à d’autres, portant sur les rapports complexes entre le monde politique et celui de la fonction publique que s’attarde le présent article.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicEuropean Political History AnalysisFrench-language works237,207