Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent rapport est produit à la demande du Conseil provincial des affaires sociales du Syndicat canadien de la fonction publique (SCFP); cela n’implique cependant pas que le SCFP endosse d’une quelconque façon ce rapport, en tout ou en partie. Le « secteur santé » du SCFP représente un bon groupe de salariéEs de l’Hôtel -Dieu de Québec; on comprend alors que le syndicat ait été tout particulièrement intéressé par le projet de partenariat public-privé (PPP) qui concerne l’Hôtel -Dieu de Québec (qui est l’un des trois hôpitaux du Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec – CHUQ). Ce projet comporte pour une part l’agrandissement de l’établissement mais également, pour une grande part, d’importants travaux de rénovation; voici pourquoi le mandat qui m’a été confié, à la mi-novembre 2008 (il y a maintenant un an), porte sur « Les rénovations d’hôpitaux en PPP, exposé des promesses et des dangers potentiels, au vu des expériences étrangères, avec en tête le projet pour le Centre hospitalier universitaire de Québec (l’Hôtel-Dieu de Québec)».
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Theoretical or conceptual | low |
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".