La consultation publique et la question éthique dans les pratiques d'aménagement urbain paysagé. Éléments théoriques et introduction à l'analyse de cas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With ever-growing concern for democracy, space developers and designers have enlisted public consultation onto their roster of communicational strategies. This strategy coincides with the appearance in our societies of a marked trend towards recognizing individual rights. Among the incidences of consultation may be found that of giving meaning to spaces. Thus these tactics and other practices respond to these strategic efforts that are out of phase with users. What kind of relation with people do these new participatory procedures instate which are based on communicational exchanges of a consultative kind ? In questioning users' "power", it is not so much the political, but rather the ethical question that retains our interest here. Specifically, our objective is to produce creteria enabling the appraisal of the "quality" of programming and designing and that of spatial projects. Our viewpoint is extrapolated results from our research in Les pratiques d'espaces libres urbains à Montréal (FCAR EQ-3013).
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 | 0.025 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".