Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce travail contribue à la connaissance du phénomène de la croissance du système urbain québécois avec l'aide de techniques statistiques. Notre double objectif est le suivant : d'une part établir la pertinence des taux de croissance allométrique calculés à l'aide de six points de référence dans le temps, et d'autre part identifier et surtout mesurer les forces qui articulent la croissance du système urbain québécois. Tout d'abord, il a été possible de voir comment la croissance des agglomérations se distribue dans l'espace. L'analyse a fait ressortir très tôt la grande complexité de la croissance. C'est pourquoi nous avons eu recours à un large éventail de variables (56). La technique de l'analyse factorielle a rendu possible la réduction de la plus grande partie de notre information en treize facteurs avec une perte inférieure à 17%. L'âge humain et matériel, la position spatiale et sociale, le dynamisme ainsi que le découpage du pourtour des agglomérations constituent les dimensions fondamentales de la croissance du système urbain québécois.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".