Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ces dernières années, le thème de la participation des citoyens aux affaires urbaines a donné lieu à de nombreux travaux de recherche. Malgré des interprétations diamétralement opposées en ce qui concerne la signification du phénomène, cela n’explique pas sa faible portée sur les plans social et politique. De fait, on doit plutôt regarder du côté des schémas d’analyse auxquels les chercheurs ont recours. Il apparaît que ceux-ci sont trop centrés sur le discours des acteurs, délaissant leur articulation aux facteurs structurels et aux transformations du cadre de l’action dans lequel prend place la participation. C’est ce que révèle l’étude de celle-ci à partir d’une sociologie de l’action collective qui met l’accent sur l’ambivalence. Ce qui compte avant tout est la capacité des acteurs à recomposer l’action. Cela ne peut être entrepris sans tenir compte des facteurs de structuration du social, des conflits qui en découlent et du caractère ambivalent de l’action.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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".