L’économie québécoise face à la concurrence extérieure : les fondements scientifiques de la politique d’achat préférentiel du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature on the decision-making process s of governments in the field of trade has developped in recent years a number of models that stress different aspects of the subject. One aspect, however, that has rarely been examined closely is the exact role played by studies in this decision-making process. How serious are they, scientifically speaking? How are they considered by governments? What is their impacts? Such questions remain largely unanswered. In this paper, an effort is made to shed some light on this aspect of the decision-making process, the chosen field of enquiry being the Quebec Government's procurement policy. After considering various studies directly related to the implementation of this policy, the conclusion is reached that in general they were not very thorough and had a rather limited role in the final decision to implement the policy. More fundamentally, one is left with the impression that scientific research, as a tool for reaching decision in the field of international trade, is seen by governments with some degree of suspicion.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".