L’adoption et le suivi de la performance d’une mesure interministérielle : Le cas du Supplément à la prime au travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sommaire La gestion horizontale pose des enjeux significatifs, en particulier en ce qui a trait au suivi et à l’évaluation de la performance des programmes publics. Cette étude de cas porte sur le Supplément à la prime au travail (SPT), une mesure sociofiscale de type interministériel, qui n’a fait l’objet d’aucune évaluation de sa performance depuis son introduction en 2008. À partir d’entretiens qualitatifs avec des acteurs publics, nous tentons d’expliquer pourquoi le SPT a pris la forme d’une mesure sociofiscale gérée par trois organisations publiques (ministère des Finances du Québec, Revenu Québec et le ministère du Travail, de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité sociale). Nous analysons ensuite les implications de cette horizontalité pour le suivi et l’évaluation de la performance de la mesure. Nous concluons à un décalage entre les responsabilités officielles et officieuses pour l’évaluation du SPT, et entre les intérêts des organisations impliquées dans l'évaluation.
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 | 0.054 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".