Développement territorial périurbain, réseau d’acteurs et innovation sociale : le cas d’une coopérative internet dans la région de Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats préliminaires d’une recherche empirique concernant la création d’une coopérative de service internet haute vitesse dans une municipalité périurbaine de Montréal. Il porte également sur un projet de redynamisation associé au programme de laboratoire rural. Bien que ces deux projets procèdent l’un de l’autre et participant à un même processus de développement territorial, ceux-ci sont marqués par des dynamiques actorielles antagoniques. L’objectif de la recherche est de mettre en lumière ces jeux d’acteurs. D’abord, elle cherche à identifier les structures organisationnelles des réseaux d’acteurs ayant eu une influence sur la mise en place de ces initiatives. Ensuite, elle discute de la contribution de certains aspects l’innovation sociale afin d’émettre certaines hypothèses concernant les difficultés rencontrées dans le second projet. L’analyse montre que de manière générale le manque d’ancrage territorial du laboratoire rural a joué en défaveur du projet. This paper presents preliminary results of an empirical research project dealing with the creation of a cooperative that provides high-speed Internet services in a periurban municipality of Montréal. It also concerns a redynamization project, which is part of the “laboratoire rural” program. Even if these two projects proceed one another and they both contribute to the territorial development process, they are characterized by the antagonistic dynamic of their actors. The objective of the research is to highlight the dynamic of actor and to identify the organizational structures of actors’ networks that had an influence on the implementation of these initiatives. The article also discusses the contribution of different aspects of social innovation to certain assumptions regarding the difficulties encountered in the “laboratoire rural” project. The analysis shows that in general the lack of territorial bond of the “laboratoire rural” worked against the project.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".