MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091500008 · doi:10.5194/sg-7-37-2012

Community development and social actor theories: a case study in Montréal (Canada)

2012· article· en· W2091500008 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial geography · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBricolageReflexivitySociologyActor–network theoryAction (physics)Function (biology)Action researchEpistemologyProcess (computing)Social scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research focusing on community development processes is increasingly making use of the notion of actor. Actors are engaged in a system of actions. A range of sociological theories has given rise to the various stances adopted by social actors, including the theatrical actor, the strategic actor, the actor-network, or the reflexive actor. We review these theories in an attempt to define an analytical framework by employing what we call a bricolage methodology. The aim is to gain insight on the interactions that bind together the various stakeholders by function (acting and the actors' roles) in the fields of action (the scenes of interaction and real interventions) and on effects (the results of these actions). We then propose to apply our analytical framework to a case study on the process of developing an action plan in the Villeray district of Montréal (Québec, Canada).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it