De la société de l’audit au système des professions : l’histoire institutionnelle de l’audit dans le service public canadien
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Si elle permet d’expliquer la croissance de l’audit dans le secteur public, la théorie de la société de l’audit de Michael Power échoue à expliquer pourquoi l’audit, quelquefois, se rétracte. En généralisant les mécanismes de conquêtes professionnelles mises en lumière par Michael Power et en mettant en évidence la compétition interprofessionnelle, la théorie du système des professions d’Andrew Abbott permet de surmonter cette difficulté. L’histoire institutionnelle de l’audit dans le secteur public fédéral canadien est revisitée à l’aide de cette théorie. Elle permet une approche dépassionnée de l’histoire et laisse entrevoir à terme un rééquilibrage des forces professionnelles entre le Bureau du vérificateur général, le Secrétariat du Conseil du Trésor et le Bureau du contrôleur général.
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 | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".