La symbiose de la planification et de la gouvernance territoriales: Le cas du Grand Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article postule, vu la transition simultanée de la planification et de la gouvernance territoriales de la verticalité à l’horizontalité et leur association toujours plus étroite au sein de la fabrique politique urbaine, qu’elles évoluent dans une relation symbiotique en cours de renforcement et que chacune constitue désormais un instrument de l’autre. Il montre qu’un récent exercice de débat public sur l’aménagement du Grand Montréal a été éclipsé par un marchandage politique et une instrumentalisation de la planification territoriale visant à construire une capacité de gouvernance territoriale. Il révèle qu’en réciproque, l’inscription de cet épisode dans une optique de gouvernance territoriale par la concertation des parties prenantes mobilisées a aidé à construire une capacité de planification territoriale longuement attendue pour le Grand Montréal. Il invite en conclusion à approfondir la recherche urbaine sur ces instruments, leur relation et leurs effets sur les dynamiques politiques et sociales des régions métropolitaines contemporaines.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".