Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depuis peu, on s’intéresse à la démocratie directe au Québec, notamment aux référendums et aux initiatives populaires. En régime parlementaire, l’adoption de la démocratie directe pose quelques problèmes, à cause de la responsabilité du gouvernement pour la politique d’ensemble. La démocratie directe fonctionne aussi à la pièce sans considération de questions connexes pertinentes et sans laisser place à la délibération du problème aussi bien que de la solution proposée. Aussi, une initiative à l’emporte-pièce peut rompre l’équilibre social. Malgré ces réserves, il y a de bonnes raisons de vouloir faciliter la participation populaire aux décisions publiques. La meilleure solution pour le Québec, du point de vue de la démocratie, de la responsabilité et de l’efficacité serait d’adopter une forme d’initiative indirecte. Cette solution combine les mérites de l’initiative populaire avec le débat en commission parlementaire.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".