Portes tournantes et éthique démocratique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La métaphore des portes tournantes rend compte d’un phénomène dont la connaissance demeure inachevée au vu des conceptions flottantes qui l’évoquent et des jugements divers qu’il inspire. Après un retour sommaire sur les contextes historiques et sociaux qui ont marqué l’évolution du phénomène, cet article vise à clarifier et à préciser ses caractéristiques et conditions, notamment en regard du lobbying. Ainsi, il est possible de saisir les différences touchant l’acceptabilité de ces pratiques dans la conduite des affaires publiques, le tout en rapport avec les considérations éthiques et l’idéal de transparence caractéristiques des sociétés contemporaines. Cet exercice apporte un éclairage utile à l’étude des mouvements de va-et-vient entre les secteurs privé et public d’activités et des motifs qui les fondent et permet d’émanciper l’analyse politique du joug de la morale.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".