Cooptation et résistance dans la planification forestière concertée au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Définies comme des processus de concertation où les utilisateurs du territoire sont invités à élaborer une vision commune de la gestion des territoires forestiers, les tables de gestion intégrée des ressources et du territoire (« tables GIRT ») sont apparues au Québec en 2010. Cet article explore la participation des Atikamekw Nehirowisiwok à ces tables, et contrairement à d’autres études qui tendent à interpréter les processus collaboratifs comme un modèle idéal « gagnant-gagnant » ou comme une stratégie de cooptation de la participation autochtone, les auteurs proposent ici d’examiner les processus de concertation comme un lieu où se manifestent à la fois des formes de résistance et de cooptation. De plus, les résultats démontrent que la participation autochtone aux tables GIRT gagne à être comprise en tenant compte des autres processus dans lesquels les Premières Nations sont également engagées.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".