Third Sector Organizations in Québec and the New Public Action in Community Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the context for and particular relations between the state and third-sector organizations in the province of Québec. A typology inspired by Coston and developed by Proulx, Bourque, and Savard is used to describe interactions between these actors. The article documents how an agreement that the private Fondation Lucie et André Chagnon signed with the Government of Québec had an impact on community organizations that respond to the social needs of vulnerable groups. A major repercussion has been the relegation of third-sector organizations to a model between subcontracting and coproductive. This is notable, as the sector had managed to establish itself as a central actor during the previous twenty years, particularly in health and social services, participating in the co-construction of public policies. RÉSUMÉ Cet article aborde la question des relations entre les organismes communautaires et l’État au Québec en mettant l’accent sur le contexte particulier et les dimensions qui les distinguent dans cette province. Une typologie adaptée de Coston par Proulx, Bourque et Savard est utilisée pour encadrer cette réflexion. Nous discutons de l’impact de l’arrivée de la Fondation Lucie et André Chagnon (FLAC) sur le rôle des organismes communautaires après la signature d’une entente entre la FLAC et l’État québécois. Nous observons qu’une des conséquences de cette entente a été de confiner les organismes communautaires à un rôle allant de la sous-traitance à la coproduction alors que, depuis vingt ans, ces organismes avaient réussi à s’établir comme partenaires centraux en contribuant, en co-construction avec l’État, à l’élaboration de politiques publiques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".