L’Acadie à la frontière : réflexion à partir de la gouvernance forestière
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article explore l’impact des frontières sur le développement des territoires en Acadie. Plus précisément, l’analyse porte sur l’influence des frontières américaine et québécoise sur le secteur forestier dans les comtés de Restigouche et Madawaska. L’analyse montre que des effets contradictoires de la position frontalière de ces comtés. D’une part, la porosité de la frontière entre le Madawaska et le Maine semble consolider la dynamique de staples d’une industrie régionale longtemps rythmée par l’accès au marché américain. D’autre part, la proximité du Québec a permis la circulation de nouvelles pratiques de gouvernance forestière inspirées de ce qui se fait de l’autre côté de la rivière Restigouche. On peut donc voir un rapport paradoxal avec la frontière qui favorise à la fois un renforcement du modèle centralisé de développement forestier et des pratiques de gouvernance alternatives.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".