À propos de l’ouvrage de John Parkinson, Deliberating in the Real World. Problems of Legitimacy in Deliberative Democracy , Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006, 209 pages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RésuméCet article propose de jeter un regard sur le processus de négociation d’une loi, en particulier, celle de la réforme du régime de régulation des rapports collectifs du travail au Québec (Code du travail) en 2001. L’étude de cette négociation appelle à remettre en question les frontières entre la négociation inter et intra-organisationnelle notamment en s’attachant à l’approche cognitive des politiques publiques. Initié dans un contexte de confrontation entre deux univers cognitifs, le débat sur la réforme du Code s’est rapidement transposé au sein de l’État. Ainsi, la négociation intra-étatique a fini par intégrer les diverses manifestations des divisions patronales-syndicales sur l’enjeu de la réforme. Dans un tel contexte, où les contraintes se multiplient, les ministres et fonctionnaires responsables du dossier sont parvenus à négocier la réforme du Code en redéfinissant les frontières de « l’organisation » et en développant un compromis qui prend appui sur les matrices cognitives entourant la négociation de cette loi.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".