Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte porte sur les obstacles au développement en Acadie, abordés sous l’angle de la gouvernance territoriale et des mobilisations d’acteurs. Considérant que le développement territorial repose sur la capacité qu’ont les acteurs locaux et extralocaux à s’organiser et à se fédérer autour de projets communs, nous traitons, en nous appuyant sur des études de cas, de trois formes d’organisations collectives : les gouvernements locaux, les coopératives et les organisations sans but lucratif (OSBL) à mandat communautaire ou environnemental. Un des aspects le plus frappants des cas étudiés est l’importance des liens entre ces divers organismes. Cependant, plusieurs paramètres de l’aménagement et du développement du territoire échappent aux collectifs locaux. Face aux défis, certains milieux proposent des alternatives. Nous terminons en nous positionnant en faveur d’une plus forte intégration des principes du développement durable dans le cadre des projets territoriaux en Acadie.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".