The festive city and the process of co-construction of public policy, a lever in the process of the social acceptability of tourism events? The case of Old Quebec.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous abordons dans ce texte à la fois la ville festive comme destination comportant de multiples parties prenantes et mettant en scène des produits touristiques événementiels dans le but d'attirer une clientèle touristique et, donc, impliquant une planification de son développement touristique et la Ville en tant qu'autorité règlementaire en matière de développement événementiel. La coconstruction (Vaillancourt, 2008) d'une politique publique événementielle formaliserait la mise en application grâce à des objectifs et des buts fixés lors de la planification de son développement. Nous explorerons, à travers le prisme de la théorie des parties prenantes (Freeman, 1984), comment la Ville de Québec peut encadrer les événements par l'entremise d'une politique publique faisant de ses parties prenantes une ressource (Howlett, Ramesh, et Perl, 2009), assurant ainsi l'acceptabilité sociale (Caron-Malenfant et Conraud, 2009) des événements touristiques qui se tiennent sur son 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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.035 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 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".