Les contours sociaux des partenariats public-privé : cas de l’hydraulique urbaine périurbaine au Sénégal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avec les Partenariats Public‐Privé (PPP), l’objectif est d’appliquer les techniques de gestion issues du secteur privé comme le préconisent les partisans du Nouveau Management Public (NMP). Pourtant, cette logique libérale, tendant à une remise en question de l’Administration Publique Wébérienne traditionnelle peut entrer en contradiction avec les exigences du service public puisque les usagers les plus démunis peuvent être confrontés aux prix pratiqués. Il est dès lors indispensable d’apprécier les mesures sociales que peuvent prendre les pouvoirs publics, acteurs dans le cadre de PPP, afin d’éviter que de tels usagers ne subissent la logique de rentabilisation financière souvent exigée par les partenaires privés. Le cas de PPP pris en exemple concerne l’exploitation de l’hydraulique urbaine et périurbaine au Sénégal et permet de comprendre qu’un consensus sur l’application de mesures sociales peut donner au PPP un visage plus humain, davantage en phase avec la vocation du service public, tout en permettant aux partenaires privés des organisations publiques d’assurer un retour sur investissement.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".