Le développement du management dans les services publics : évolution ou révolution ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé La forte progression de l’endettement public et les critiques de fonctionnement bureaucratique de l’administration ont popularisé le thème déjà ancien de la modernisation de l’État. Les services publics sont particulièrement concernés par ce mouvement de rénovation visant à améliorer la performance de la gestion publique. Peut-on pour autant évoquer une « révolution managériale » sur le modèle des pays anglo-saxons ? Après une réflexion sur l’applicabilité du concept de management à la sphère publique, les auteurs analysent les différentes étapes de la rénovation administrative française et leur cohérence, depuis la rationalisation des choix budgétaires des années 1960 jusqu’à la récente loi organique relative aux lois de finances. L’examen du contenu des réformes traduit des évolutions lentes et prudentes plutôt qu’une « révolution ».
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".