La création récente de gouvernements métropolitains : regard sur l’Angleterre et la France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I. Introduction Dans plusieurs pays europeens (Angleterre, France, Italie) ou ailleurs (Canada), on a assiste, ces dernieres annees, a la mise en place d’un gouvernement metropolitain. Dans d’autres cas, comme a Liege, la perspective est debattue. Pour contribuer a la reflexion, cet article propose une analyse comparee de la creation d’institutions metropolitaines en Angleterre et en France. Les reformes recentes constituent-elles un changement radical ? Quelle est l’assise territoriale reelle des institutions creees ? Depuis plus longtemps, les chercheurs ont montre que l’institution d’un tel palier d’action publique demeure partielle, notamment en raison de la resistance des autres collectivites. Idealement, le « gouvernement metropolitain » possede trois traits principaux (Sharpe, 1995 ; Lefevre, 1998). Premierement, il dispose d’une legitimite politique forte, obtenue par l'election directe de ses representants politiques. Cette legitimite propre permet au palier metropolitain que ses actions soient admises et s’imposent a tous – et d'abord aux collectivites locales de base. Loin de l’intercommunalite, ou la legitimite politique est celle accordee par les representants des communes membres, on est ici dans un modele supracommunal. Deuxiemement, l’institution metropolitaine dispose d’une autonomie significative vis-a-vis des autres niveaux de gouvernement, acquise a travers des ressources financieres et humaines adequates et des competences importantes. Les champs general
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".