Éclairage : mécanismes consultatifs indépendants des administrations publiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les administrations et décideurs publics se heurtent à des problèmes de plus en plus complexes et imbriqués qui requièrent des solutions sur mesure. Pour les résoudre et pour mettre fin aux approches cloisonnées, l’élaboration des politiques publiques doit s’appuyer sur une infrastructure de la connaissance fiable et fondée sur les faits. Les mécanismes consultatifs, qui prennent la forme de réseaux ou de groupements d’organismes, sont un pilier essentiel de cette infrastructure de la connaissance. Ils fournissent aux administrations les analyses approfondies et fondées sur des faits qui éclairent chaque phase du cycle de l’action publique, en particulier celles de la conception et du lancement des mesures. Ces mécanismes comprennent parfois des organes consultatifs permanents ou ad hoc dont la durée de vie, la structure et le mandat varient ; tantôt ils sont placés sous l’autorité directe des pouvoirs publics, tantôt ils en sont distincts, voire indépendants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".