MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884981541 · doi:10.1522/revueot.v20n1.350

La gestion efficace : un art méthodique qui repose sur la concertation et l’harmonie Entrevue avec Monsieur Bernard Angers

2011· article· fr· W2884981541 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lise Plourde, Brahim Meddeb

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Organisations & territoires · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction biographiqueNée à Jonquière le 15 avril 1939 et issu d'une famille de 4 enfants où ses parents croyaient à l'importance de l'éducation, Bernard Angers a d'abord fait son « cours classique 1 » au collège de sa ville natale jusqu'à l'obtention de son baccalauréat ès arts en 1959.Il a, par la suite, complété en 1963 une maîtrise en relations industrielles à l'Université Laval de Québec, puis en 1965 une maîtrise en sciences économiques de la London School of Economics en Grande-Bretagne.À son retour d'Europe en 1965, monsieur Angers commence sa longue carrière de fonctionnaire auprès de différents ministères, carrière qu'il a poursuivie jusqu'en 1993.Il a occupé différentes fonctions telles que agent de recherche, directeur général, sous-ministre associé, sous-ministre adjoint, sous-ministre en titre, secrétaire général associé, présidentdirecteur général et sous-ministre.De 1993 à 2001, il a été recteur de l'Université du Québec à Chicoutimi.Après 2001, monsieur Angers se retire graduellement de la vie active mais consacre ses énergies à certains mandats auprès de certains organismes et à une implication dans le milieu sociétal.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.011
Scholarly communication0.0130.008
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.004

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueRevue Organisations & territoiresSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207