Comment faire «<i>worker out»</i>la délibération publique dans un contexte de rapports linguistiques complexes: spécificités des instruments délibératifs au Nouveau‐Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire Cette recherche met l’accent sur la dimension des rapports linguistiques complexes (comme au Nouveau‐Brunswick, seule province officiellement bilingue au Canada) et souligne les conditions d’optimisation associées à l’ingénierie des instruments délibératifs, à leur mise en œuvre et aux processus décisionnels qui en découlent. Pour ce faire, notre regard s’est principalement posé sur les éléments qui freinent l’efficacité de ces dispositifs, notamment en termes d’élaboration des politiques publiques. Deux dimensions ou conditions de succès ressortent de notre analyse : 1) la dimension substantive qui se rapporte au rôle de bilinguisation de l’instrument et 2) la dimension processuelle qui s’intéresse à la question de la saisine – le rôle de l’instigateur et du porteur de l’instrument.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".