Le débat sur la réforme municipale à Montréal. La place de la variable linguistique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fortement médiatisé, le débat sur les fusions municipales a occupé le devant de la scène montréalaise pendant les deux années qui ont précédé l’entrée en vigueur de la loi créant la nouvelle ville de Montréal en janvier 2002. Abordant la controverse entourant les fusions municipales sous un angle nouveau, cet article la situe dans le contexte de la transformation des rapports interethniques au Québec en mettant l’accent sur la place occupée par la variable linguistique. Pour faire ressortir les enjeux ethniques et linguistiques liés à cette réforme, peu explorés dans les récentes études, nous examinons la façon dont la dimension linguistique a teinté l’ensemble de ce débat et faisons ressortir la centralité de la variable linguistique, d’abord comme argument fondamental des villes à statut bilingue, puis comme transcendant l’ensemble du débat sur les défusions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".