Roles of representations in the evaluation process of policies: case of public initiatives supporting the short sea shipping in Quebec region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renewed interest has been shown in recent years with regard to the short sea shipping (SSS) in Quebec because this transport mode meets imperatives related with sustainable development. However, the reality of Quebec SSS stands out from the enthusiasm of the government to promote this transport mode. Indeed, the whole of initiatives have resulted in a mixed record so far. This research rests on the assumption that the inefficiency of public policies to support SSS could result in a part from spreads of perception between the different involved actors. The aim of our research is part of disciplinary balance between the fields of public policy analysis and that of decision support. The result diversity goes beyond the economic interests of stakeholders but expresses the contrasted representations of its issues made by the SSS stakeholders in Quebec. Un regain d’intérêt s’est manifesté ces dernières années à l’égard du transport maritime de courte distance (TMCD) au Québec afin de répondre aux impératifs liés au développement durable. Cependant, l’ensemble des initiatives entreprises se sont soldées par un bilan mitigé. La présente contribution appuie la conjecture selon laquelle l’inefficacité des politiques publiques de soutien au TMCD résulterait en partie d’écarts de perception entre les différents acteurs impliqués. L’objectif de notre recherche s’inscrit dans une conciliation disciplinaire entre le champ de l’analyse des politiques publiques et celui de l’aide à la décision. La diversité des résultats obtenus témoigne de la multiplicité des perceptions des parties prenantes et va au-delà de la projection des intérêts économiques immédiats des différentes parties. Elle dépeint plutôt des représentations contrastées du secteur et de ses enjeux au sein même des acteurs du TMCD au Québec.
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 | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".