La gouvernance territoriale au Québec entre régionalisation et participation des peuples autochtones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé.Les théories de la gouvernance à paliers multiples ont tendance à minimiser le rôle du droit dans la structuration des systèmes de gouvernance. Or, la juxtaposition de deux évolutions récentes en matière de gouvernance territoriale au Québec, la gouvernance partagée avec les Autochtones et le projet de régionalisation du gouvernement du Québec, remet ce postulat en question. En effet, la protection constitutionnelle dont bénéficient les clauses de gestion territoriale de traités comme la Convention de la Baie James et du Nord québécois et, plus récemment, l'obligation de consulter découlant de l'arrêtNation haïda, assurent aux Autochtones un pouvoir plus important que celui qui est offert aux acteurs régionaux par le gouvernement du Québec. Abstract.Multi-level governance theories have a tendency to minimize the role of law in shaping governance systems. The study of two instances of territorial governance in Quebec, shared governance with the aboriginal peoples and the Quebec government's regionalization initiative, puts this premise in question. The constitutional protection afforded to the land management provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and, more recently, to the duty to consult flowing from theHaida Nationcase give the aboriginal peoples more power than that recognized to regional actors under the Quebec government's initiative.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".