Les faces cachées de la résistance gouvernementale à la transparence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’expansion des régimes d’accès à l’information à travers le monde a nourri de grands espoirs au sujet de l’avènement d’une ère nouvelle de transparence de la part des gouvernements. Il semble cependant que nous sous-estimions la capacité des gouvernements à mettre au point des parades administratives qui leur permettent de conserver un contrôle sur les projets et dossiers. Le gouvernement canadien s’est doté d’une législation d’accès à l’information en 1982. Cette loi visait la mise en place d’une forme de contrôle sur le pouvoir exécutif ; la machine administrative n’a pas tardé à imaginer pratiques et recours technologiques pour réduire au minimum l’impact de nuisance de cette nouvelle loi. Dans les faits, ces initiatives administratives ont sensiblement réduit l’accès à l’information pour certaines catégories de personnes, tels les journalistes et les représentants des partis politiques.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.005 |
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".