Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'étude de la forme et de la croissance des systèmes urbains et régionaux est entravée par la difficulté que les chercheurs éprouvent à résoudre la dichotomie forme-processus. Celle-ci rend confuse la distinction entre systèmes physiques, biologiques et sociaux ; elle rend difficile le passage du langage des attributs à celui des localisations ; et finalement, elle engendre la pauvreté théorique des notions de région homogène et de région polarisée. La théorie de la croissance allométrique offre des possibilités réelles de solution à ces dilemmes. Ses fondements philosophiques structuralistes suggèrent que la forme et la croissance sont respectivement la projection dans l'espace et dans le temps des forces sociales ; et ses fondements méthodologiques systémiques offrent une démarche opératoire permettant d'effectuer la projection. Le paradigme allométrique mène à de nouvelles questions concernant, par exemple, la relation entre disparités sociales et régionales, et la part relative, dans l'Histoire, des effets cycliques et des effets cumulatifs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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, 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".