Bibliographic record
Abstract
La confiance des citoyens envers leurs institutions est un enjeu majeur dans l'exercice d'une saine dmocratie et d'une bonne gouvernance.Le Qubec encadre les activits de lobbyisme en associant leur lgitimit la transparence afin de renforcer la confiance des citoyens l'gard des institutions publiques.Adopte l'unanimit par l'Assemble nationale en 2002, la Loi sur la transparence et l'thique en matire de lobbyisme reconnat la fois la lgitimit du lobbyisme et le droit des citoyens de savoir qui tente d'exercer une influence auprs des institutions publiques.Ce droit de savoir se concrtise dans la Loi par l'obligation pour les lobbyistes de faire preuve de transparence, notamment en inscrivant leurs mandats au registre des lobbyistes.Informs des communications d'influence qui sont exerces en amont du processus dcisionnel de nature publique, les citoyens peuvent ainsi interpeller les titulaires de charges publiques avant que les dcisions soient prises.Ce texte expose les enjeux dmocratiques de la Loi ; les conditions d'application de la Loi ainsi que les principaux lments permettant de concrtiser la transparence et l'thique ; les pouvoirs du Commissaire au lobbyisme du Qubec et les enjeux de l'adhsion et du respect des rgles en matire de lobbyisme.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".