La tarification des services publics : Financement différent ou taxe supplémentaire? Fascicule 3 : Vers une politique de la tarification plus incitative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vieillissement de la population, renouvellement des infrastructures, remboursement de la dette : le Québec devra relever des défis majeurs en matière de financement des services publics au cours des prochaines décennies. Au moment où le gouvernement du Québec crée un groupe de travail sur la tarification des services publics, quelle est la place de la tarification par rapport aux impôts dans les revenus totaux de l'État? Le troisième fascicule, qui s'intitule « La tarification des services publics : financement différent ou taxe supplémentaire? Fascicule 3 : Vers une politique de la tarification plus incitative », explicite que pour réussir ce virage vers l'implantation d'une politique de la tarification plus incitative et visant une utilisation plus intensive et structurée, trois caractéristiques s'avèrent essentielles. D'abord, l'adhésion de la population. Deuxièmement, le support politique du gouvernement représente un élément fondamental afin d'aborder le financement des biens et services publics sous un angle différent. Finalement, il importe de créer un environnement administratif incitatif pour les gestionnaires publics.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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, 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".