La néoruralité au Québec : facteur présentiel d’enrichissement collectif ou source d’embourgeoisement ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, drawing on work on components of local economies based on externally generated residential development, we examine how the presence of neo-ruralities has revitalized the economy of Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux, a rural municipality in Quebec undergoing a process of neoruralization. Second, we seek to determine the sustainability of a strategy based on attracting such residential development to enhance the territorial development of Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux, particularly in terms of the community's attractiveness, which has been both a source of population growth and of recreational and tourist visits. This case study is based on the fact that it focuses on the effect of neorurality, which is one source of population growth in a peripheral municipality long considered a “losing” community, at least according to the criteria used by Benko and Lipietz (1992) to identify the conditions for “winning” regions. Our research shows that the presence of special attractions within the territory of Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux as well as their development contributes to attracting new populations. The impacts of this neorurality are varied: improvement in infrastructure and buildings, rising land values, general beautification, and revitalization of village governance and social and community life. These elements undoubtedly contribute to the attractiveness of the area, making it a “winning” territory. However, a number of negative effects were also identified, particularly in relation to the environment and social cohesion. In fact, the neorurality observed in Saint-Mathieu-de-Rioux seems more like a process of village gentrification rather than a new economic development consequent on the presence of new populations, as has been observed in a number of other local economies. Moreover, environmental deterioration resulting from neo-rurality has already begun to affect the attractiveness of the village. Thus, in the case studied, the strategy of local development through the establishment of productive systems cannot be entirely replaced by a strategy aimed at attracting new populations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".