MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

L’évaluation des risques dans les projets publics

2003· article· fr· W249136499 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Kast, André Lapied

Bibliographic record

VenueÉconomie publique/Public economics · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicRisk and Portfolio Optimization
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Transports
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublicsValuation (finance)Political scienceEconomic rentHumanitiesEconomicsPhilosophyFinanceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’évaluation des projets publics se fait traditionnellement par la méthode du calcul coûts- bénéfices. Nous reprenons les arguments en faveur de l’utilisation des prix de marché pour l’évaluation des projets publics à partir de fondements théoriques en termes d’Équilibre Général. Les impacts non marchands peuvent être monétarisés grâce à la méthode d’évaluation contingente. L’incertitude sur les conséquences d’un projet conduit à retenir différents scénarios dont les impacts monétaires définissent un risque financier. Nous proposons d’évaluer ce risque en l’identifiant à un portefeuille d’actifs échangés sur les marchés.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.755
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.010
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.189 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉconomie publique/Public economicsSame topicRisk and Portfolio OptimizationFrench-language works237,207