MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253186361 · doi:10.1787/gov_glance-2017-36-fr

Éclairage : les Institutions et les pratiques visant à préserver les régulateurs de toute influence indue

2017· book-chapter· fr· W4253186361 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePanorama des administrations publiques · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsEmployment and Social Development Canada
FundersOrganisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les régulateurs assurent l’accès aux grands marchés et secteurs qui fournissent des services essentiels aux particuliers et aux entreprises. Ils effectuent un suivi de la qualité, facilitent la gestion des infrastructures et renforcent l’efficience des marchés, à l’interface entre les pouvoirs publics, le secteur privé et les usagers. Tous les acteurs précités ont de bonnes raisons de chercher à influer sur les politiques menées en matière de réglementation. La question fondamentale est de savoir comment contenir les tentatives d’influence indue afin de permettre aux régulateurs d’agir avec objectivité, impartialité et cohérence, sans conflits d’intérêts ni parti pris.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.897
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207