L’influence des organismes communautaires à titre d’acteurs intermédiaires de prestation de biens et de services sur la confiance institutionnelle des personnes s’y impliquant : le cas québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La confiance institutionnelle est la clé de la santé de toute entité législative. Deux groupes de facteurs sont à la source de l’émanation de confiance institutionnelle chez les individus : les facteurs liés à la représentativité et ceux liés à l’expertise des institutions. L’État est le principal récipiendaire de la confiance institutionnelle issue de ces deux groupes. Toutefois, il n’est pas le seul acteur à pouvoir s’en réclamer, en particulier dans un contexte de multiplication de nouveaux acteurs socio-économiques dans la diffusion de biens et de services relevant traditionnellement du domaine public et de retrait progressif de l’intervention étatique. Les organismes communautaires sont l’un de ces nouveaux acteurs dont la présence et l’importance sociale sont en forte augmentation. Or, ils peuvent également être, au même titre que l’État, les récipiendaires de la confiance des individus. Dans le contexte de diminution de la confiance institutionnelle envers l’État au fil des dernières décennies, les organismes communautaires ont-ils un rôle à jouer et un impact vis-à-vis de cette situation par rapport aux personnes qui s’y impliquent ? À partir d’un sondage auprès des personnes responsables des organismes communautaires québécois dédiés aux individus en situation de handicap physique ou/et psychologique, nous tentons de répondre à ce questionnement. Les résultats démontrent une diminution de la confiance institutionnelle à la faveur d’une hausse de confiance envers les organismes communautaires à la suite de l’implication des individus dans ce type d’acteur et ce, particulièrement au niveau des deux groupes de facteurs explicatifs (représentativité et expertise). Institutional trust is the key to every healthy legislative entity. Two groups of factor are the source of emanation of people’s institutional trust : factors about representativeness and about expertise. The state is the main recipient of institutional trust from these two groups. However, he is not the only actor who can claim it, particularly in a context of multiplication of new socio-economic actors in the distribution of goods and services traditionally made by the public sector and progressive withdrawal of state intervention. Community-based organizations are one of those new actors whose presence and social importance are sharply increasing. However, they can be, on the same level than the state, the recipients of people’s trust. In the context of a decline of institutional trust in the state over the last decades, do community-based organisms have a role to play and an impact over this situation for the people who are involved in those organizations ? Based on a survey of people in charge of Quebec community-based organizations dedicated to individuals with physical and/or psychological disabilities, we tried to answer this question. The results demonstrate a decrease of institutional trust in favor of higher trust in community-based organizations as a result of being involved in this type of actor, particularly at the level of the two groups of explanatory factors (representativeness and expertise).
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".