Bibliographic record
Abstract
La poussée de l’habitat pavillonnaire après la Seconde Guerre mondiale a profondément bouleversé le paysage urbain en Amérique du Nord. La vitesse et l’extension de ce mouvement témoignent d’une intense ferveur, si bien que l’on ne doute pas qu’un trait fondamental de la culture contemporaine soit en cause. Il reste que l’habitat pavillonnaire essuie aujourd’hui de nombreuses critiques. Malgré ces critiques, l’habitat pavillonnaire demeure toujours très populaire, d’où la pertinence de se pencher à nouveau sur les raisons de l’adhésion qu’il suscite. Dans cette perspective, il semble important de s’interroger sur l’engagement personnel que suppose le recours au crédit hypothécaire nécessaire, dans la plupart des cas en Amérique du Nord, à l’accession à la propriété d’un pavillon. Il n’est certainement pas anodin que le crédit hypothécaire soit une institution dont l’évolution, au XXe siècle, est intimement liée à celle de l’habitat pavillonnaire. Or il est possible de démontrer que l’engagement personnel qu’exige le crédit n’est pas qu’une simple condition technique liée à la mise en oeuvre d’un mécanisme économique, mais la manifestation d’une passion qui, au Canada et aux États-Unis, modèle encore fortement la façon d’habiter les lieux et d’aménager le territoire.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".