Trousse d’outils municipale : stratégies pratiques pour améliorer l’appui municipal à votre programme bénévole. (Ottawa, bénévoles canada)(2006).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce document est une boite a outils qui vise a aider les municipalites a elaborer un plan pour soutenir et accroitre le niveau d’engagement actuel des benevoles dans le cadre d’une approche sure et bien geree. Le document est divise en 7 parties, dont la partie principale est le plan d’action. Pour ameliorer le soutien que toute communaute accorde au benevolat, il faut elaborer un plan bien reflechi. Cette section decrit un plan en six etapes qui aidera toute municipalite qui en a besoin a developper des pratiques exemplaires en matiere de benevolat. De plus, une section « Promotion du programme en benevolat » decrit les avantages du benevolat, les liens entre le benevolat et le Nouveau Pacte pour les villes et les collectivites et les problemes legaux auxquels s’exposent les municipalites si des benevoles ne sont pas correctement filtres et supervises. Ainsi, une section « Ressources » presente de nombreuses ressources que les municipalites peuvent utiliser dans leurs efforts pour encourager le benevolat.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.003 |
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".