Imaginer l’aménagement soutenable des villages inuits du Nunavik
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur un processus collaboratif de design urbain visant la conception de visions d’avenir concrètes et soutenables pour deux villages inuits du Nunavik. En plus de données sur l’adaptation culturelle et climatique des milieux de vie, les propositions des auteurs s’appuient sur des observations, des savoirs autochtones et différents concepts d’aménagement nordique, de même que sur l’avis d’experts et d’informateurs locaux. Comment planifier une offre adéquate en logements et en espaces partagés pour favoriser des milieux adaptés aux pratiques locales et aux conditions climatiques extrêmes ? Quelles formes donner à ces milieux tout en respectant les contraintes environnementales, sociales et organisationnelles ? Les projets font émerger des connaissances (ou prises de connaissance) en lien avec l’aménagement sur les composantes et les paysages qui fondent l’identité des villages, ainsi que sur le rôle, l’occupation et l’adaptabilité des lieux d’échanges, sur la perception de la densité et sur l’acceptabilité d’autres manières possibles d’organiser les secteurs résidentiels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".