MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4249480026 · doi:10.1787/gov_glance-2017-51-fr

Mécanismes institutionnels régissant les systèmes d'intégrité du secteur public

2017· book-chapter· fr· W4249480026 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePanorama des administrations publiques · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare Systems and Practices
Canadian institutionsEmployment and Social Development Canada
FundersOrganisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Un système cohérent et global permettant d’assurer l’intégrité du secteur public se compose nécessairement de multiples éléments ; des mécanismes institutionnels adéquats doivent donc être mis en place pour accompagner la conception, la mise en œuvre et le suivi et l’évaluation permanents de ce système. Dès lors, les pays doivent fixer des mandats institutionnels clairement délimités et veiller à ce que les entités soient dotées de ressources et de capacités suffisantes pour bien exercer leurs responsabilités.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.933
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.182
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 topicHealthcare Systems and PracticesFrench-language works237,207