Le Québec et le contrôle parlementaire de la gestion administrative et financière de l’État
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le système de gouvernement responsable dont a hérité le Québec au XIX e siècle confie à l’Assemblée nationale une place centrale dans le contrôle de la gestion administrative et financière de l’État. Face une administration gouvernementale qui se complexifie inévitablement, une nouvelle forme de reddition de comptes est apparue au début des années 2000, par l’implantation d’un régime d’imputabilité des sous-ministres et des dirigeants d’organisme public. Une commission parlementaire est désormais chargée exclusivement d’entendre ces individus sur la gestion administrative de leur organisation, cet exercice constituant une pratique parlementaire unique au Canada. Ce régime d’imputabilité, qui complète le contrôle financier traditionnel de l’action étatique par le Parlement, donne aujourd’hui davantage de poids au pouvoir de contrôle et de surveillance de l’Assemblée nationale et s’arrime harmonieusement avec le principe de gouvernement responsable.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".