Avis du Centre de recherche sur le développement territorial en collaboration avec le GRIDEQ et le GRIR dans de cadre de la consultation sur la Stratégie gouvernementale en développement durable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le CRDT a souhaité participer à la consultation à l’égard du projet de Stratégie gouvernementale de développement durable en soumettant le présent document, ce mode de participation en ligne ayant été privilégié par Québec. L’avis du CRDT se structure autour des quatre questions posées par les responsables de la consultation au sujet du projet de Stratégie gouvernementale de développement durable : 1. Quels en sont les points forts ?; 2. Quelles sont nos suggestions pour l’améliorer ?; 3. Quelles actions pourrions-nous engager pour appuyer sa mise en œuvre ?; 4. Comment peut-il favoriser l’intégration des actions des partenaires de la société québécoise ? Précédemment aux réponses à ces questions, des considérations générales sur la Stratégie sont abordées.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.004 |
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".