Quelles règles d’écriture se donner pour communiquer avec l’ensemble des citoyens du Québec ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans les échanges entre l’État et la population, virage numérique ou pas, la lettre est l’un des documents les plus utilisés et pour lequel il existe le plus de conventions (Clerc et Kavanagh, 2006). Quelles règles d’écriture se donner alors, comme rédacteurs professionnels, quand on sait que les citoyens doivent avoir un bon niveau de littératie générale et de littératie numérique pour être en mesure de comprendre ce que l’État exige d’eux ? L’article présente la méthodologie utilisée par le Groupe Rédiger de l’Université Laval, à Québec, pour poser un diagnostic des obstacles à la lecture sur un corpus de 44 lettres et proposer des recommandations pour la réécriture de l’ensemble de la correspondance administrative d’une société d’État québécoise.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".