MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809974870 · doi:10.1111/cag.12473

Le centre‐ville de Montréal est‐il en perte de vitesse? Analyse de la localisation des services supérieurs 1996‐2011

2018· article· fr· W2809974870 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Benjamin Duquet

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis une trentaine d'années, géographes et économistes ont alimenté une importante littérature sur la dynamique spatiale de l'emploi. À partir de la décennie 1980, certaines métropoles étatsuniennes ont fait face à une délocalisation des emplois de services supérieurs partant des centres‐villes vers des pôles périphériques. Pour le cas de la région de Montréal, plusieurs études ont observé que la métropole québécoise avait été épargnée de cette décentralisation, et ce, jusqu'au tournant du XXIe siècle. Cet article poursuit l'analyse de l’évolution de la répartition spatiale dans la région métropolitaine de Montréal entre les années 1996 et 2011. À partir de microdonnées de Statistiques Canada, plus d'une quinzaine de pôles d'emplois de services supérieurs ont été identifiés. Les résultats indiquent que le nombre d'emplois de services supérieurs du centre‐ville de Montréal s'accroît continuellement en terme absolu, mais diminue en terme relatif au profit des zones hors pôles du reste de la région métropolitaine de recensement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.008
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicUrban Transport and AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207