Aux frontières de diverses légitimités. L’encadrement de l’activité de lobbying
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’encadrement législatif du lobbying, relativement récent et quasi exclusif à l’Amérique du Nord, vise à rebâtir la confiance des citoyens à l’égard des institutions politiques et de ceux qui y sont titulaires de charge publique. Par-delà la portée autrement limitée des législations, la transparence est imposée pour protéger deux nécessités légitimes en démocratie : l’action relativement autonome des responsables des décisions publiques et l’exercice libre du droit de pétition des citoyens renforcé de conditions favorisant l’égalité d’accès aux décideurs. La progression d’une culture politique consumériste et l’éclosion d’une deuxième génération de groupes de pression donnent momentanément l’avantage à ces derniers. De récentes observations font finalement ressortir combien complexes sont ces pratiques, de sorte qu’il n’est plus envisageable de penser l’encadrement des lobbyistes exclusivement en termes d’éthique « intuitive ».
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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".