Revitalisation urbaine et gentrification positive : le cas du Cinéma Beaubien à Rosemont
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte analyse le cas du Cinéma Beaubien à Rosemont, un projet culturel soutenu par une coalition d’organisations de la société civile. Grâce à l’élaboration de stratégies inclusives favorisant la cohésion sociale et la vitalité locale, ce projet a dynamisé une artère commerciale en friche et a été central dans la revitalisation récente du quartier. Ce cas nous permet de mieux saisir l’effet des projets culturels portés par des organismes communautaires, ancrés localement et encastrés dans un modèle économique où se conjuguent les échelles et les acteurs. L’ancrage local facilite l’émergence de nouvelles aspirations mobilisant les citoyens et développe le sentiment d’appartenance au territoire. Cette recherche ouvre la voie à de nouvelles interprétations postulant que, sous certaines conditions, les projets culturels peuvent éviter les effets négatifs associés à la gentrification, souvent concomitants à la revitalisation d’un milieu, lorsqu’ils sont amorcés par l’action collective et soutenus par du leadership partagé.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".