MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967528964 · doi:10.3917/rfsp.552.0317

La démocratie en métropoles : gouvernance, participation et citoyenneté

2005· article· fr· W1967528964 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Jouve

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue française de science politique · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)Université du QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<titre>R&#233;sum&#233;</titre> Depuis une quinzaine d&#8217;ann&#233;es, la litt&#233;rature sur la gouvernance et la d&#233;mocratie locale fait flor&#232;s. Sur fond de transformations majeures de l&#8217;&#201;tat dans les d&#233;mocraties occidentales et de d&#233;fiance de plus en plus affich&#233;e de la part de la soci&#233;t&#233; civile vis-&#224;-vis de la sph&#232;re du politique, l&#8217;&#233;chelon local est tr&#232;s souvent consid&#233;r&#233; comme la matrice &#224; partir de laquelle il est possible de refonder le lien politique sur un registre plus participatif et moins centr&#233; sur le personnel politique. Ceci est particuli&#232;rement vrai dans les m&#233;tropoles, o&#249; les probl&#232;mes sociaux, &#233;conomiques, environnementaux se concentrent avec le plus d&#8217;acuit&#233;. Cet article se fixe comme objectif d&#8217;&#233;valuer &#171;&#160;l&#8217;impact&#160;&#187; de la d&#233;mocratie participative sur la transformation de l&#8217;ordre politique dans les m&#233;tropoles. Il se focalise sur la remise en question apparente de la centralit&#233; des &#233;lus, sur la port&#233;e des politiques d&#8217;habilitation et sur les transformations de la citoyennet&#233;.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.289 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations93
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue française de science politiqueSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207