Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the three roles that Members fulfill is to act as overseers of government activity. In the Westminster parliamentary system, and more particularly at the National Assembly of Quebec, Members have numerous means at their disposal to carry out this function. Some enter into play in the Assembly Chamber (for example, during question period and debates upon adjournment), but most are reserved for the proceedings of parliamentary committees. That is the case, for example, with the surveillance of public bodies, the annual consideration of the budgetary estimates, and the hearing of the Auditor General. All parliamentary committees participate in these exercises in parliamentary oversight, but at the National Assembly there is one committee that specializes in oversight and control: the Committee on Public Administration. This article looks at the history of the committee and its operating procedures. It also shows how the work of this committee represents, from many points of view, an original and innovative experience.
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 | 0.041 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.033 |
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".