Une gestion démocratique et solidaire des communs ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de l’exemple des banques communautaires de développement (BCD) brésiliennes, cet article met en évidence une conception novatrice de la gestion des ressources financières comme commun. Celle-ci répond non seulement aux critères de durabilité identifiés par Elinor Ostrom, mais aussi à la recherche de relations d’interdépendance égalitaires. Ces interdépendances dépendent de combinaisons, en tension permanente, entre plusieurs principes économiques, dont l’enjeu est de faire prévaloir les valeurs de solidarité et de démocratie sur certaines tendances marchandes et bureaucratiques. Cet effort repose sur l’ancrage sociopolitique des BCD, c’est-à-dire le processus continu, complexe et jamais acquis, de délibération et de construction de leur légitimité, tant auprès des habitants et avec eux, qu’avec les partenaires institutionnels.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".