Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deux ancrages distincts sont à l’origine des initiatives de médiation sociale au Québec. Le premier provient de la mobilisation des organismes de justice alternative du Québec, le second, des politiques urbaines de la Ville de Montréal. Ces points d’ancrage, tout en s’interpénétrant occasionnellement, engendrent des pratiques de médiation portées par des fondements et des principes différents. Le premier favorise des pratiques sociales fondées sur les principes de démocratisation de la justice et du droit (principe de l’accès au droit) et sur la quête d’alternatives aux modes traditionnels de réaction sociale (en particulier celle de modalités non punitives de règlements des conflits). Il propose de favoriser un modèle de médiation non professionnalisé, c’est-à-dire intégrant des citoyens formés aux pratiques de la médiation. Le second émane des politiques publiques de la Ville de Montréal ; celles-ci fondent des pratiques de médiation fortement teintées par des enjeux de sécurisation, de pacification, d’inclusion sociale et de cohabitation sociale harmonieuse dans l’espace public et pour lesquelles le recours à des professionnels de la médiation est privilégié.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".