Les espaces de coworking : insertion urbaine et actions d’urbanisme. Les apports d’une comparaison internationale Québec-France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les espaces de coworking accueillent une part infime de la population active, et pourtant ils s’inscrivent dans un processus de profondes transformations des pratiques, des milieux et des lieux de travail. Ils suscitent un engouement croissant de la part des milieux politique et universitaire, particulièrement sur le plan du développement économique. Notre recherche montre que leurs contributions sont observées principalement à un autre niveau : celui de l’aménagement urbain et du développement local. À partir de cas d’études situés à Montréal (Québec) et à Tours (France), il en ressort que certains de ces espaces présentent des effets transformateurs localement à condition de conjuguer différents champs d’action de l’urbanisme fondés sur la réglementation urbanistique, la collaboration entre les parties prenantes du projet urbain et l’accompagnement des initiatives portées par les milieux communautaire et entrepreneurial propres à l’urbanisme tactique.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".