Renouveler L’Aménagement et L’Urbanisme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En Amerique du Nord et en Europe, le renouvellement des pratiques d’amenagement du territoire et d’urbanisme s’impose comme une question centrale des etudes urbaines et regionales depuis plus d’une decennie. Ce questionnement s’articule autour de trois axes : la planification territoriale, le debat public et le developpement durable. A partir de recherches inedites portant sur des experiences c oncretes menees au Quebec et en France, cet ouvrage propose un regard nouveau sur les retombees et les effets du debat public sur la planification territoriale, l’amenagement du territoire et l’urbanisme. Il fait ainsi le bilan des implications du double imperatif de la participation des citoyens et de la prise en compte du concept de developpement durable, et offre des reponses a des questions cruciales pour l’avenir des pratiques d’amenagement du territoire et d’urbanisme en contexte urbain et metropolitain. Mario Gauthier est professeur agrege au Departement de travail social et de sciences sociales de l’Universite du Quebec en Outaouais. Michel Gariepy et Marie-Odile Trepanier sont tous deux professeurs titulaires a l’Institut d’urbanisme de la Faculte de l’amenagement de l’Universite de Montreal.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".