MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162023625 · doi:10.82308/24235

Les enjeux d'imputabilité de l'État envers la protection de l'intérêt général dans un partenariat public-privé : étude des types d'imputabilité émanant du secteur public et du secteur privé et des interrelations suscitées à l'intérieur d'un partenariat public-privé

2006· dissertation· fr· W7162023625 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claudie. Imbleau-Chagnon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipAccountabilityPublic–private partnershipOrder (exchange)Notional amountPrivate sector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At a time of reorganization for certain socio-economic paradigms within the Province of Quebec, the public-private duality is in need of a competitive and sustainable collaboration in order to promote and ameliorate public services, provide more controlled levels of risk and lower initial investment costs in such projects. The concept of a public-private partnership is born from a necessity to adapt the structure of the existing systems to better serve the modern demands of users, to replace old and inefficient infrastructures as well as to abet prohibitive financial considerations of the Province of Quebec. Under which circumstances and to which degrees would the private partner in a public-private partnership, having become the custodian of a project serving primarily private interests, be responsible to absorb the risks transferred by the Province of Quebec to the partnership? How can it be assured that the protection of the public interest and inextricable public values links of the public partner are preserved in a public-private partnership? This thesis is structured into three sections. In the first chapter, we analyze the concept of public private partnerships and the parameters that circumscribe to it. This analysis deals with public services and the public interest. The second chapter defines the concept of accountability while outlining various traits of accountability which may be associated with each member of a public-private partnership as well as with the partnership itself. A more pointed examination then discusses the pitfalls of current systems of accountability within the public-private framework. Finally, we examine the notional values that the current control mechanisms contribute to a public-private partnership. This analysis indicates that a series of new and renewed control and accountability mechanisms is needed to manage the various idiosyncrasies of a public-private partnership while congruently promoting a balance of interest and vision between the partners of a public private partnerships.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0120.016
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.224 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPublic-Private Partnership ProjectsFrench-language works237,207