Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article considère les rapports officiels comme des instruments d’action publique déterminant certaines représentations d’un problème public. En comparant la production de rapports en France et au Québec sur le gaz de schiste, il y est démontré que le processus rédactionnel est d’abord contraint par des choix initiaux en termes de mandat et d’organisation, puis que les pratiques consultatives et référentielles des commissions contribuent à définir les significations de la controverse. Ces rapports diffusent ensuite certaines représentations du problème public qui suivent des trajectoires variées en fonction des acteurs susceptibles de porter ces arguments dans le débat public. Le rapport est un instrument de l’action publique grâce à sa capacité à légitimer certaines significations, mais il possède aussi des effets non maîtrisés, telle sa réutilisation hors du cadre du mandat.
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 | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.003 |
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".