Réglementer la qualité de l’eau potable au Québec : une analyse politico-administrative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise la compréhension du contexte et du jeu des acteurs ayant mené à l’adoption du Règlement sur la qualité de l’eau potable. Cette initiative a permis au Québec de se positionner parmi les États ayant des normes de qualité et des contrôles de production parmi les plus rigoureux sur le continent nord-américain. Une adaptation de l’approche contextualiste de Pettigrew (1990 ; 1992) est retenue comme cadre d’analyse. Cette approche insiste sur l’importance, au moment d’un changement, de l’interaction entre trois dimensions : le contexte, le contenu et le processus. De manière à préciser cette dernière dimension, il est proposé de recourir à l’idée de coalitions, un concept propre à l’approche des réseaux de politiques publiques. Cet apport permet de mieux cerner l’influence des organisations externes à l’appareil gouvernemental et de fournir une explication des relations entre les différentes dimensions du contextualiste.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".