Développement territorial en milieu rural : quelques exemples en Région wallonne
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La régionalisation de la Belgique a amené d'importantes réformes institutionnelles, accompagnées le plus souvent de réformes dans le mode de prise de décision.C'est ainsi que dès la fin des années 1980, la Région wallonne a entrepris de développer plusieurs outils de portée communale, destinés à favoriser la participation et la prise en main, par les communes, de leur développement (schéma de structure communal, programme communal de développement territorial, plan communal de développement de la nature, plan communal général d'égouttage,...).Ces outils étaient exclusivement destinés aux entités communales, ce qui limitait fortement les actions coordonnées.Rapidement, des outils à portée plus large, rassemblant plusieurs communes ou parties de communes, mieux adaptés à une gestion optimale des territoires, tenant compte des contraintes physiques, biologiques et humaines ont été mis sur pied.Le présent article passe en revue quelques-uns de ces outils et tente de voir dans quelle mesure ils sont applicables et complémentaires.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".