Aménager la cité : conflit et négociation pour la création de jardins citoyens à Bordeaux et à Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’étude de deux jardins à Bordeaux et à Québec, créés à l’initiative d’habitants, nous renseigne sur la capacité de ces derniers à s’emparer d’enjeux urbains complexes et témoigne d’une tension entre deux conceptions aménagistes : l’une fonctionnelle et économique, l’autre transversale et sensible. Dans une approche comparative, l’analyse de l’action et du processus de négociation montre que les protagonistes qui ont choisi d’entrer dans le jeu du débat public sont parvenus à faire aboutir la demande sociale alors que la « critique artiste » est demeurée à la marge de la décision publique. Toutefois, les deux situations témoignent de la capacité des habitants à penser autrement l’aménagement de la ville et de la nécessité pour ces derniers de s’organiser pour reprendre les « clés de la ville ».
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".