MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297459274 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.2042

Rémunérer la performance des agents publics par des primes d’équipe : constats, analyses et recommandations

2004· article· fr· W2297459274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yves Emery

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2004
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicAccounting and Organizational Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePublicsSociologyPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article discute de la contradiction existant entre un discours managérial mettant l’accent sur l’équipe et les performances collectives d’un côté, et l’utilisation d’outils d’évaluation et de reconnaissance avant tout individuels de l’autre. Reposant sur une enquête réalisée au sein d’organisations publiques suisses, l’analyse montre la faible prise en compte actuelle de l’équipe et dégage les principales pistes à suivre pour parvenir à un système intégré de pilotage et de reconnaissance des agents publics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.099
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.099
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicAccounting and Organizational ManagementFrench-language works237,207