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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.008
Scholarly communication0.0130.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0110.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.007

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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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