Regards sur l’expérience de la Commission de révision permanente des programmes au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé : Cet article s’intéresse aux travaux effectués par la Commission de révision permanente des programmes (CRPP) au Québec. Les auteurs font état de ses réalisations, de ses recommandations et de son influence sur les programmes publics. L’analyse s’appuie sur une revue documentaire (littérature grise, rapports, revue de presse). Les constats qui se dégagent de cette démarche d’analyse soulèvent de nombreuses questions quant à la nature de cet exercice de révision des programmes. Summary : This paper focuses on the work done by the Commission de révision permanente des programmes (CRPP) in Quebec. The authors carried out an analysis of the literature (grey literature, reports, press review) on CRPP in order to study its achievements, recommendations and influence on public programs. The findings raise many questions about the nature of such a program review mechanism.
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 | 0.031 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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".