La participation citoyenne au débat public sur l'aménagement urbain par l'entremise des blogues : le cas du blogue Québec urbain.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'adoption généralisée d'Internet crée de nombreuses occasions pour la participation citoyenne au débat sur les aménagements urbains. Certains blogues consacrés à l'urbanisme tentent de s'inscrire dans la sphère publique afin d'amorcer une discussion autour d'enjeux urbains. Cette recherche se penche sur le cas de Québec Urbain, un de ces blogues axés sur la ville de Québec et tente de \ndéterminer quelles caractéristiques de la discussion, en regard de son déroulement et de ses participants, permettent de mener un débat éclairé. Il en ressort que le statut des participants influence grandement le débat et que des mécanismes qui ajouteraient une certaine transparence et faciliteraient le partage de l'information gagneraient à être mis en place. Les technologies ne servent qu’à favoriser la formation de communautés en ligne qui exerceront potentiellement une plus grande influence The general adoption of the Internet has created numerous opportunities for citizens to participate in \ndebates concerning urban planning issues. Some blogs dedicated to urban planning attempt to integrate the public sphere in order to promote discussions around urban-related issues. This study focuses on the specific case of Québec Urbain, a blog dedicated to Quebec city, and attempts to \nidentify what characteristics of the discussion, in regard to its unraveling and its participants, enable a constructive debate. The results suggest that the participants' status greatly influence the debate and \nthat mechanisms to ensure a certain transparency as well as to promote information sharing would be beneficial. Technology only serves as a tool to promote the creation of online communities that could eventually exerce greater influence.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".