Les « communautés de relations au paysage », l’expérience socio-spatiale avec le territoire comme nouveau cadre pour l’analyse des populations rurales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Can we still set farmers against non-farmers, locals against new-migrants in the contemporary rurality ? Proposing the notion of communities of relationships with the landscape as a new framework for the analysis of the rural populations, this article intends to show the contribution of the landscape studies to this debate. This notion suggests to group together people on the basis of their experience with the rural landscape in order to exceed the socio-demographical categories defined a priori. A case study conducted in the intensive agricultural areas of the south of Québec illustrates how it is applied in a qualitative research which brings up to date two typologies based on ideal types. The results shows a productive rural always attentive in this territories but with faces more complicated that their apparent spatial and social homogeneity hint at. Thus, without reducing the differences between groups of rural populations, the notion of community of relationships with the landscape seems to be particularly heuristic in order to offer a more exactly reading of the challenges link to the recomposition of social spaces in the rural.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".