Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Québec comme en France, les contraintes économiques modernes remettent en question les découpages municipaux existants. Les gouvernements se heurtent aux réticences des acteurs locaux pour mettre en place des institutions intermunicipales de coopération permettant aux municipalités dont le territoire est trop exigu, ou dont les moyens économiques sont trop faibles, de satisfaire les besoins publics de leur population et de favoriser le développement local. L'étude des modalités de création et de fonctionne ment de ces institutions révèle, au-delà des correspondances conjoncturelles, d'importantes différences. Alors qu'en France l'intercommunalité se fonde toujours sur des préoccupations de recomposition territoriale, le Québec a développé une conception beaucoup plus fonctionnelle laissant une large place à laconsultation de la population. À partir de ces différences, les institutions de coopération intermunicipales québécoises et françaises s'efforcent d'acquérir une certaine autonomie à l'égard de leurs membres et de définir des stratégies économiques ou politiques spécifiques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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".