Notice bibliographique
Résumé
IntroductionDoes Montreal represent a new school in studies in North America, after Chicago, Los Angeles and Miami? If so, is Montreal an ideal laboratory which is itself an integral component of the production of new modes of analysis of the (Cenzatti 1993:8)? The Montreal label was first proposed by French geographer Jean-Pierre Augustin of the Universite de Bordeaux, who had closely followed the work of studies scholars in Montreal over three decades, in response to the multiplication of urban in the United States (Augustin 2010). Setting aside any questions of academic fashion, Augustin is convinced that a new reading of the city is taking shape in Montreal, centred on the social study of public places as social space. In this paper I argue that we can indeed talk about a Montreal if we accept a soft version of the school concept. I will show that a particular kind of knowledge has been developed as a reflection of Montreal itself, a city of inbetweens. Its social contours fall somewhere between segmentation and liveable social mix, and it is shaped by a double legacy, European and American, meaning that it has a centralized welfare state but loose policies and a vibrant civil society. I will also underline the fact that the Montreal is the product of continuous discussion between social researchers and practitioners (policymakers as well as grass-roots organizations' workers), who have been engaged in dialogue about the promise and perils of social mix and inter-ethnic cohabitation. This reflexivity has inspired pragmatic expertise and policy-making and has produced a distinctive sociological approach to the city that emphasizes social and ethnic differences, neighbourhoods, and public spaces.To illustrate this approach, I shall discuss some research projects that have mobilized research teams and policy-makers in Montreal with regard to inter-ethnic cohabitation in neighbourhoods, inter-ethnic cohabitation in social housing, and planned social mix in residential projects. Revisiting these projects allows me to retrospectively sketch out the research agenda they all share, which could be labelled as a school. But before discussing this research, I briefly review the recent debates on schools in studies.The Montreal School: A or a Conversation?The School Debate started in the late 1980s with claims made by artists, architects and scholars at the University of California, such as Edward Soja, Michael Dear and Stephen Flusty regarding new ways to think about the city. These scholars sought to distance themselves from the framework put forth by the so-called Chicago during the 1920s-1940s, since Chicago could no longer be seen as the quintessential capitalist metropolis. The Los Angeles held that development was now taking place in peripheral areas, in ways that were postmodern or even chaotic (in terms of spatial disorder), as well as culturally hybrid. As a result, the old schema of ecology - in which, for instance, a city grew outwards in concentric rings from centre to periphery - was no longer useful for studying the fragmentations imposed on the city by post-industrial capitalism (Dear 2002).Yet, according to Jan Nijman, a Dutch scholar working at the University of Miami, even Los Angeles itself was no longer the paradigmatic city at the beginning of the 21st century. How could Los Angeles be an extreme example of the new trends in development associated with contemporary capitalism when it was still, after all. a late-industrial city (Nijman 2000)? Instead, he argues, Miami is clearly more convincing as an exemplary global and postindustrial city. Produced by new transportation and communication technologies, Miami is a major hub for transnational communities anchored in ethnic enclaves, and is dominated by flexible immigration, excessive materialism, and a high crime rate. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».