MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2292482041

Diversity in Sports and Recreation: A Challenge or an Asset for the Municipalities of Greater Montréal?

2006· article· en· W2292482041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cécile Poirier, Annick Germain, Amélie Billette

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationDiversity (politics)Promotion (chess)Asset (computer security)Diversity managementVariety (cybernetics)Adaptation (eye)AccommodationPublic relationsSociologyPolitical scienceGeographyEconomic growthEconomicsPsychologyLawPolitics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Today, ethnocultural diversity is a fact of life in big cities, and indeed in smaller ones, where it sometimes serves as a means of promotion. How are cities responding to the issues raised by the growing numbers of people who have di! erent needs and di! erent tastes? is article o! ers some answers based on the fi ndings of two surveys of practices followed in managing diversity, conducted in Greater Montreal. Municipalities are developing a variety of responses to diversity: some are adopting policies that advocate accommodation, others favour a universal approach. In the fi eld of recreation, various issues arise: infrastructures (redesign of recreational spaces) and interethnic cohabitation (changes in preferences, group issues). Generally, Montreal’s municipalities are responding ad hoc, case by case, in a pragmatic spirit, as seen in the case of pool management. e management of diversity may thus seem to be improvised, but this approach has the advantage of allowing gradual adaptation to the di! erences among residents, with a view to fostering reciprocal learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.133 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207