Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the heart of debates and controversies concerning environmental public policy and major infrastructure and development projects, social acceptability (SA) has become institutionalized in Quebec over the years, directly related to the concepts of public participation and sustainable development. As an increasingly necessary condition for public action, AS can be understood as a new normative instrument in order to articulate participatory democracy and representative democracy with strong implications in terms of both procedural and distributive justice. In this article, we want to answer four questions in order to better understand and analyze SA for public action: how to define SA and approach it theoretically? It is proposed to conceptualize the concept in the manner of work on the public action instruments of Lascoumes and Le Gales (2004) and Halpern et al. (2014); 2) What trajectory has it experienced over time? We respond to this through an analysis of the corpus of reports from the Bureau d’audiences publiques sur l’environnement (BAPE); 3) What do the actors say? We report on the similarities and differences in the testimony of public participation professionals (PPPs) and; 4) What is the scope of this new standard on projects and decisions? Initial findings are proposed on the basis of three important and recent case studies. These four responses allow, from different angles, to shed new light from Quebec’s experience with AS.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".