MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2771846226 · doi:10.3917/eh.087.0039

Les « villes de compagnie » du Canada. Un patrimoine urbain pour le vivre ensemble de notre siècle ?

2017· article· fr· W2771846226 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEntreprises et histoire · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si les villes-usines ont pu faire l’objet de nombreux travaux à l’échelle internationale, les villes de compagnie du Canada sont encore mal connues. Construites par des entreprises en situation de mono-industrie, elles ont fait l’objet de planifications soignées, non seulement pour loger les salariés, mais aussi pour leur offrir toutes les infrastructures utiles à la vie quotidienne, tant dans les domaines sociaux, politiques, économiques que des loisirs. L’article interroge cette définition et ce qu’elle recouvre, en comparaison avec d’autres typologies proches. Il analyse deux cas plus précisément pour en dégager les caractéristiques propres au Canada : Powell River, en Colombie Britannique, érigée à partir de 1908, et Arvida, au Québec, à partir de 1926. Il se termine par une réflexion sur l’état actuel de ces villes et leur avenir, possible, dans la voie d’une patrimonialisation investie et assumée par ses habitants.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.189 · 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