MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785071747 · doi:10.4000/books.pum.5441

Chapitre 3. La mise en œuvre des recommandations de la Commission Bouchard-Taylor

2014· book-chapter· fr· W2785071747 on OpenAlexafffund
François Rocher

Bibliographic record

VenuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooks · 2014
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comment prendre la mesure des actions gouvernementales entreprises pour donner suite (ou non) aux recommandations formulées par la Commission Bouchard-Taylor (CBT) ? D’entrée de jeu, soulignons qu’il n’est pas rare que les principales conclusions d’une commission d’enquête tombent dans l’oubli dès leur parution, ou que les recommandations ne soient pas suivies, ou ne le soient que partiellement. Le gouvernement ne se sent pas lié par les conclusions qui peuvent s’en dégager. Pour sa part, la ...

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePresses de l’Université de Montréal eBooksSame topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207