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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".