La gestion par résultats au sein du tribunal administratif du travail
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur les influences du nouveau management public sur le droit administratif québécois, particulièrement sur la gestion du Tribunal Administratif du Travail. Depuis les réformes administratives des années 2000, divers mécanismes et outils de gestion relevant de l’approche du nouveau management public et de la gestion par résultats ont été mis en place au sein de l’administration publique québécoise. Il s’agit d’emprunter des sciences managériales, afin de permettre aux gestionnaires de prendre les décisions les plus efficaces et performantes dans les circonstances. Cet article met en lumière les influences de ce changement dans l’organisation de l’administration publique québécoise, et ce, afin de mieux en comprendre les implications de celui-ci pour le droit administratif. Ces réflexions permettront ainsi de mieux comprendre comment ces outils managériaux interagissent avec le droit administratif, à savoir si le droit administratif a été acculturé par le management.
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 | 0.008 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".