Enjeux démocratiques et éthiques de l’interface politico-administrative au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le présent article s’intéresse aux principales règles et modalités qui encadrent l’exercice de la fonction gouvernementale au Québec par ses relations avec la fonction administrative. Après une mise en contexte d’ordre juridique et organisationnel, il explore la pratique des relations d’interface en ce qui a trait à la délégation de pouvoir, à la reddition de comptes, à la transparence administrative et aux rôles des organismes dont les dirigeants sont désignés par le Parlement. Après avoir relevé la possibilité que ces relations d’interface suscitent des enjeux éthiques, l’importance d’adopter une perspective d’analyse plus globale est mise en relief, prenant ainsi acte de la nécessité de s’intéresser au tandem politico-administratif et à ses élites, mais sans pour autant s’y limiter pour aussi considérer le rôle de tierces parties dans la régulation des institutions et la contribution à la qualité de la vie démocratique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".