Conflit et processus participatif d’un processus d’aménagement territorial : de la consultation publique au recours aux urnes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article interroge la façon dont s’arbitre, à une échelle municipale, un conflit associé à l’usage des sols périurbains à travers un processus d’adoption de règlement d’aménagement pour le versant sud du mont Rigaud dans la municipalité de Sainte-Marthe, dans la région de Montréal. L’article cherche à mettre en lumière les différentes dimensions du conflit d’aménagement, qui se veut un chevauchement entre les dimensions substantielles, procédurales, structurelles et basées sur les incertitudes. Il permet de jeter un regard critique sur les processus participatifs et décisionnels de l’aménagement du territoire au Québec. Confronté aux limites inhérentes au contexte légal notamment au chapitre de la participation et l’accès aux processus décisionnels, un regroupement de citoyens se saisit des élections municipales afin d’obtenir la majorité du conseil municipal et finalement modifier les règlements adoptés par leurs prédécesseurs.
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 | 0.029 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".