La construction sociale de la mobilité durable urbaine : les discours sur les enjeux du transport dans la ville de Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En 2011, la Ville de Québec publiait son Plan de mobilité durable dans l’optique d’adapter son système de transport aux principes du développement durable. Quoiqu’il ait été l’objet de plusieurs consultations et audiences publiques, le Plan n’a pas fait l’unanimité auprès du public. Dans cet article, après avoir situé la mobilité durable dans un cadre théorique socioconstructiviste, nous analysons le débat entourant la réalisation de ce Plan. Trois narrations distinctes sur la mobilité durable urbaine ont été repérées, chacune relevant de trois coalitions d’acteurs. À Québec, bien que la mobilité durable soit un projet largement partagé, les acteurs ne s’accordent pas sur les causes et les modalités de sa réalisation, car ils lui associent idées et valeurs divergentes.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".