Pour Une Charte De Bonne Gouvernance Publique (Towards a Charter for Good Public Governance)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
French Abstract: Utilisant les travaux de Martin Loughlin sur les tensions du droit public, et entre autres, la complementarite et reconciliation de deux concepts : « potestas » (les limites) et « potentia » (l’exercice). L’auteure envisage un projet de charte qui habilite les gouvernements a aller plus loin. Loughlin suggere que les restrictions du « potestas » habilitent la « potentia » et que les contraintes facilitent l’exercice du pouvoir. Les droits de la personne et les exigences d’imputabilite envers les gouvernements ne seraient plus une contrainte futile mais bien ce qui leur permet d’aller plus loin. L’existence de contraintes, procedurales, democratiques, ou d’imputabilite legitime l’exercice du pouvoir. Cette intuition peut aider a proposer certains amendements a la Charte quebecoise, pour faciliter la bonne gouvernance. Dans cette veine, l’auteure suggere des exigences constitutionnelles de participation democratique, d’imputabilite, de transparence, de protection des contre-pouvoirs et d’une gouvernance intelligente basee sur la preuve.English Abstract: Through the work of Martin Loughlin on the tensions within public law, and, amongst others, the complementarity and reconciliation of the two concepts of “potestas” (the limits) and “potentia” (the exercise of authority), the author contemplates a Charter project which enables governments to go further. Loughlin suggests that the restrictions of the “potestas” empower the “potentia”, and that the constraints facilitate the exercise of power. Human rights and the accountability requirements aimed at governments would not be a futile constraint anymore, but rather what would enable them to go further. The existence of procedural, democratic or accountability constraints legitimize the exercise of power. This intuition might contribute to suggest amendments to the Charter, in order to facilitate good governance. To this end, the author suggests constitutional requirements of democratic participation, accountability, transparency, protection of counter-powers and of an evidence-based intelligent governance.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".