La participation citoyenne en ligne au Québec : Conditions organisationnelles et leviers de transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente étude jette un éclairage original sur la participation citoyenne en ligne en montrant de façon explicite les règles qui orientent les pratiques gouvernementales en cette matière, à savoir le souci de neutralité et de rigueur méthodologique, la préservation de l’image et de l’unicité du message, la crédibilité du mécanisme et la qualité du contenu. Ces règles bien ancrées dans le fonctionnement administratif de l’État québécois amènent les organismes publics à privilégier une gestion hiérarchique des mécanismes de participation citoyenne et, ainsi, à jouer de prudence avec les médias sociaux, en particulier les forums en ligne. L’étude montre aussi qu’Internet contribue à la consolidation des outils traditionnels de consultation publique au Québec. Enfin, les auteurs proposent quelques pistes pour mieux exploiter le potentiel délibératif et collaboratif des nouvelles plateformes interactives de participation citoyenne.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 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".