MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256653828 · doi:10.1787/gov_glance-2017-80-fr

Rapport coût-efficacité dans le secteur public

2017· book-chapter· fr· W4256653828 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
KeywordsPublicsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On peut mesurer le rapport coût-efficacité du secteur public en considérant le rapport entre les intrants (humains ou financiers) et certaines des principales réalisations pour chaque secteur. En général, le terme « réalisations » (on parle aussi de « retombées ») fait référence aux effets des programmes et services publics sur les citoyens en termes de santé, d’apprentissage, de satisfaction et de confiance. Dans un contexte de fortes contraintes budgétaires, il est important d’améliorer le rapport coût-efficacité des services publics, étant donné que c’est aux réalisations que les citoyens s’intéressent le plus, en dernière analyse, et que les pouvoirs publics doivent aussi démontrer qu’ils font bon usage des fonds publics. Toutefois, si une part des réalisations finales peut être attribuée aux services publics, il n’est pas toujours facile de déterminer quelle est cette part, car de nombreux autres facteurs peuvent aussi intervenir dans l’état de santé des individus, leur niveau éducatif et les autres aspects de leur existence.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.231
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 designNot applicable
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