MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771371768 · doi:10.7202/1034541ar

Le pragmatisme des nouvelles classes moyennes et l’urbain

2016· article· fr· W2771371768 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean–Pierre Collin, Jacques Léveillée

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les nouvelles classes moyennes peuvent être définies par leur rôle de médiation entre les classes populaires et les classes possédantes. Mais ce rôle les met en situation de concurrence avec les classes moyennes traditionnelles. Car si elles contrôlent les ressources idéologiques nécessaires à cette fonction de médiation, les moyens organisationnels leur échappent en bonne partie, étant encore l’apanage de la petite bourgeoisie traditionnelle. Mais quelle est actuellement la place de ces nouvelles classes moyennes dans l’urbain ? Et quelles sont au juste ces classes qui viennent investir les vieux quartiers ? À partir d’une recherche qu’ils mènent conjointement sur les stratégies des élites montréalaises, les auteurs tentent de répondre à ces questions. Les nouvelles classes moyennes semblent être de plus en plus les « délogeurs » de ceux qu’elles prétendent défendre. Leurs associations sont surtout préoccupées par leurs propres intérêts à court terme. Leur présence dans les partis politiques se multiplie, qu’il s’agisse des partis au pouvoir ou d’opposition. Ces observations amènent les auteurs à s’interroger sérieusement sur les conditions dans lesquelles s’exerce en fait ce rôle de médiation attribué aux classes moyennes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.013
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.207
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207