From Planning to Spatial Foresight in Québec: What Future-Telling Means in a Context of Sub-regional Governance. The Case of Vision 2031
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the adoption of the sustainable development policy in 2006, a strategic vision is now required for planning proceedings in Quebec, especially for Regional County Municipalities (RCMs) in charge of a supra-municipal Schéma d’aménagement et de développement (SAD). Focusing on the renewal proceedings of the SAD of Rivière-du-Loup’s RCM between 2009 and 2013, this research analyzes the process of shaping such a strategic vision, and the place of this vision in the management of a sub-regional governance. During that four-year period, this RCM led a sub-regional coalition of both public and private actors in a cross-cutting and joined-up process called Vision 2031. This process involved more than experts and decision-makers; it opened its future-oriented process to the wider civil society. This was significant for three reasons. First, it expressed a shift from the retrospective to more forward-looking knowledge building. Second, it translated a switch from sectoral planning to cross-cutting planning. Third, it represented an on-going process towards more collaborative ways of proceeding. Territorialization and horizontalization of spatial planning policies constitute a same process; it implies that responsibility for development stems not only from decision-makers but from the entire sub-regional community. In other words, in a context of challenging public institutions’ political capacity and crisis of top-down model of management, such new spatial foresight proceedings highlight the emergence of a new type of sub-regional public regulation – a governance by the future.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".