MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4244206063 · doi:10.1787/gov_glance-2017-74-fr

Gouvernance des risques majeurs

2017· book-chapter· fr· W4244206063 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePanorama des administrations publiques · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicRisk Management in Financial Firms
Canadian institutionsEmployment and Social Development Canada
FundersOrganisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans la Recommandation adoptée en 2014 par le Conseil de l’OCDE sur la gouvernance des risques majeurs, il est recommandé aux pays d’« associer tous les acteurs aux niveaux national et local afin de coordonner la participation de diverses parties prenantes dans des processus inclusifs d’élaboration des politiques » pour la gouvernance des risques majeurs. L’objectif d’une approche menée à l’échelle de la société tout entière pour assurer la sécurité et la sûreté des citoyens et de leurs biens consiste à défendre l’intégrité territoriale et à préserver les infrastructures essentielles et le bon fonctionnement des marchés. Les pays de l’OCDE ont démontré leur engagement en faveur d’une gouvernance des risques de très haute qualité, ce qui favorise la bonne mise en œuvre des politiques de gestion des risques. Les particuliers et les entreprises attendent des autorités qu’elles se tiennent prêtes face à un large éventail de crises et de chocs mondiaux possibles, et qu’elles sachent faire face s’ils surviennent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.010
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePanorama des administrations publiquesSame topicRisk Management in Financial FirmsFrench-language works237,207