Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 1908, afin de lutter contre le favoritisme qui mine autant l’efficacité de l’administration publique que la démocratie, le Parlement canadien décrète que les fonctionnaires de l’État seront dorénavant nommés selon le principe du mérite, en fonction de processus administrés par un organisme indépendant : la Commission de la fonction publique du Canada. Publié à l’occasion du centenaire de la commission, ce livre retrace l’histoire de ce principe et de cette institution, nés dans la controverse et, depuis, le sujet d’inlassables débats. Il permet de mieux comprendre la résilience exceptionnelle et la contribution unique de la commission à l’édification d’une administration publique indépendante, qui constitue un pilier important de la démocratie parlementaire canadienne. On y découvre également comment la commission a contribué, au fil des ans, à trouver un équilibre sans cesse renouvelé entre trois objectifs, reliés mais parfois contradictoires, associés à la dotation de l’administration publique d’une démocratie libérale : la neutralité politique de l’administration, l’égalité démocratique et l’efficacité en matière de gestion.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".