Analyse typologique des plans stratégiques des universités québécoises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente recherche consiste à vérifier l’applicabilité de la typologie de Larouche et ses collaborateurs à des activités de planification stratégique des établissements d’enseignement supérieur. Cette typologie, développée en vue de l’évaluation de la performance, comporte sept types de conceptions définies en fonction de sept dimensions. Une analyse documentaire de 17 plans stratégiques, menée selon des critères de clarté et consistance logique, d’exhaustivité et d’utilité montre que cette typologie peut s’avérer éclairante lors des processus de planification : les conceptions sont définies assez clairement pour être repérables dans les plans stratégiques, elles recouvrent des réalités signifiantes présentes dans les documents analysés et la typologie permet d’appréhender des contextes complexes (alignement stratégique) et s’avère assez sensible pour rendre compte de la diversité des situations (caractérisation des établissements).
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".