Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour plusieurs institutions financieres, la capacite d'implanter une gestion par projet s'avere de plus en plus source d'avantage concurrentiel. Toutefois, la singularite et le caractere temporaire du projet, l'eparpillement des connaissances entre projets, la dualite de l'autorite a laquelle les talons sont soumis, la multitude des intervenants et la pression sur les ressources posent plus d'un defi. L'ouvrage a pour objectif de presenter le «bureau de projet» comme solution organisationnelle, mise de l'avant dans plusieurs organisations, visant a tirer le meilleur des apprentissages inter et intra projets et a bâtir un capital de connaissances. Tout au long de cet ouvrage, le lecteur est invite a explorer la realite des bureaux de projet (structure, fonctionnement et meilleures pratiques) au sein de quatre institutions financieres au Canada. A l'issue de cette exploration, l'ouvrage presente une demarche en sept jalons permettant d'implanter des strategies d'apprentissage en contexte multi-projets sur differents plans: technologique, humain, structurel et organisationnel.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it