Choix d’utilisation du sol à travers le zonage : évaluation et évolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un règlement de zonage et ses amendements précisent les utilisations du sol permises sur le territoire municipal. Son objet essentiel consiste alors à indiquer les usages ou groupements d'usages sélectionnés et autorisés dans les différentes zones de la municipalité, compte tenu des objectifs de planification territoriale. Dans trois villes de l'agglomération montréalaise situées sur la Rive-Sud du Saint-Laurent, Longueuil, Brossard, Boucherville, nous avons analysé les types de groupements d'usages retenus par les amendements au zonage de 1965 à 1973. Ces choix des groupements reflètent une certaine conception de l'utilisation du sol. Celle-ci traduit-elle une volonté de contrôle de l'utilisation future du sol? Révèle-t-elle une conception fonctionnaliste du zonage? Enfin dans la perspective dynamique des amendements au zonage, peut-on constater une évolution des choix des groupements dans le temps?
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".