MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2675065355 · doi:10.7202/1034546ar

Les politiques municipales socialistes en Grande-Bretagne

2016· article· fr· W2675065355 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chris Pickvance, Andrée Yanacopoulo

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesCentralisationPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis 1980, le gouvernement central en Grande-Bretagne a instauré un contrôle financier des dépenses municipales à la suite des initiatives socialistes qui ont entraîné des augmentations de l’impôt local. L’enjeu était de faire contrepoids aux coupures pratiquées par le gouvernement conservateur. Pour les fins de l’analyse l’auteur regroupe ces initiatives autour de trois domaines : « 1. les politiques de transport à prix réduit; 2. le non-respect de la loi pour la protection des services; 3. la politique d’emploi, la décentralisation des services et le financement des groupes locaux ». Ces initiatives socialistes ont contribué à ébranler la confiance gouvernementale dans le bien-fondé de ses politiques. Elles ont aussi démontré qu’il était possible de développer une certaine solidarité à la base. Par ailleurs elles ont bien fait voir qu’il était faisable de se soustraire au contrôle central. Soulignons enfin que malgré le caractère limité de ces initiatives locales (pas plus de 30 conseils sur 500 sont aux mains des socialistes) leur répercussion a été significative en termes d’élargissement du soutien apporté au socialisme.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.149
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207