Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les réformes administratives ayant touché les services publics aux cours des vingt dernières années mettent résolument l’accent sur des modes de gestion entrepreneuriaux, qui privilégient les résultats et accordent une plus grande liberté quant aux moyens mis en oeuvre pour les atteindre. Les services de police n’ont pas échappé à cette tendance et, malgré les difficultés structurelles liées à l’évaluation des performances policières, de nouveaux instruments de mesure de l’efficacité et de l’efficience ont vu le jour. Ces derniers ont pour objectif de mettre à la disposition de la communauté des informations sur la qualité du service offert, mais également de favoriser l’identification et la diffusion des meilleures pratiques parmi les organisations policières. En s’appuyant sur l’exemple concret de l’outil développé en Australie depuis une dizaine d’années, on montrera quelle forme peuvent prendre ces nouveaux instruments, quelles sont leurs limites et comment ils pourraient être améliorés.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".