MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012796011 · doi:10.7202/1027975ar

Nouveau cycle économique en périphérie nordique  –  Une lecture de la première décennie*

2015· article· fr· W2012796011 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marc‐Urbain Proulx

Bibliographic record

VenueL Actualité économique · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Municipal Affairs, Regions and Land OccupancyUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au sein de la vaste périphérie nordique du Québec, les immobilisations annuelles ont presque doublé au fil de la décennie 2000. Cette impulsion d’un nouveau cycle de croissance s’inscrit en parallèle avec un ralentissement de la création d’emplois. De tels effets contradictoires en matière de développement semblent correspondre à un mouvement transitoire multidimensionnel au sein des périphéries mondiales sollicitées pour alimenter, de leurs matières premières, la forte urbanisation dans les économies émergentes. À cet effet au Québec, les secteurs économiques nordiques de la construction, de l’extraction, de la transformation et des services réagissent différemment au cours de la période observée. Selon notre analyse, quatre causes s’ajoutent aux difficultés de l’industrie forestière pour expliquer les changements structurels en cours, soit l’intensification technologique, l’importation des équipements et de matériaux, la migration alternante des travailleurs (fly in – fly out) et la faible attractivité du secteur manufacturier. Notre lecture nous conduit à proposer deux pistes de réflexion en matière de véritable développement territorial.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.476
Threshold uncertainty score0.947

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations13
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueL Actualité économiqueSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207