MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024517546 · doi:10.17118/11143/20068

Projet Rabaska face à l’éthique du développement durable

2009· article· fr· W3024517546 on OpenAlexaffabout
Annie Chaloux, David Custeau

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de recherche en politique appliquée · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFace (sociological concept)Political sciencePsychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les discussions entourant l'autorisation du Projet Rabaska, terminal méthanier à Lévis, furent très animées au Québec de 2006 à 2008.Comment peut-on espérer obtenir un consensus au sein des populations sur une initiative de développement qui touche à la fois des aspects sociétaux, environnementaux et économiques ?Surtout, est-ce que la décision ultimement prise par le Gouvernement du Québec répond à l'éthique du développement durable ?Cet article offre une définition de cette éthique émergente et l'applique ensuite à ce processus décisionnel particulier.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de recherche en politique appliquéeSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207