The AccèsLogis Québec Program: 15 years of Partnership Between the State and the Social Economy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 15 years, the Quebec government’s public policy on social and community housing has been based mainly on the AccesLogis program. Under this program, some 23,000 new social housing units have been developed. While the program’s regulations and funding are governed by the public sector (primarily provincial, secondarily federal), its development and implementation rely heavily on the participation of social and solidarity economy (SSE) stakeholders, and particularly on the input of housing Non Profit Organizations (NPOs) and co operatives. In other words, SSE stakeholders play a significant role in program implementation (co-production) and in its definition and design (co-construction), to use a distinction favoured in this paper’s conceptual framework (Vaillancourt, 2009). This appraisal of the AccesLogis program is based on research that was mostly done in partnerships since 1995. Our paper is divided into two parts: first, we present the context in which the AccesLogis program emerged, along with its main characteristics; then we show that the program represents a social innovation in which SSE stakeholders make a major contribution while participating not only in the implementation of the program (co-production), but also in defining its architecture (co-construction). En matiere d’habitation sociale et communautaire, la politique publique du gouvernement du Quebec, au cours des quinze dernieres annees, s’est principalement appuyee sur le programme AccesLogis. Ce programme, concu en 1996 et lance en 1997, a permis de developper pres de 23 000 nouvelles unites de logement social. Meme si la regulation et le financement du programme relevent du secteur public (principalement provincial et secondairement federal), son developpement et sa mise en œuvre misent fortement sur la participation des acteurs de l’economie sociale et solidaire (ESS), notamment sur l’apport des OSBL et des cooperatives d’habitation. En d’autres termes, les acteurs de l’ESS assument un role important non seulement sur le plan de la mise en oeuvre (co-production) du programme, mais aussi sur le plan de sa definition et de son orientation (co-construction), pour reprendre une distinction que nous privilegions dans notre cadre conceptuel (Vaillancourt, 2009). En nous appuyant sur des resultats de recherches, le plus souvent partenariales, menees depuis 1995, nous presentons un bilan du programme AccesLogis. Nous le faisons en mettant en lumiere la contribution de l’ESS et les relations partenariales qui se sont instaurees entre l’ESS et le secteur public. Il en ressort un portrait globalement positif, mais non exempt de quelques zones d’ombre. La structure de notre texte repose sur deux grandes parties. Dans une premiere partie, sur un registre plutot descriptif, nous presentons le contexte d’emergence du programme AccesLogis et ses principales caracteristiques. Dans une deuxieme partie, sur un registre plus analytique, nous faisons ressortir comment le programme AccesLogis constitue une innovation sociale dans laquelle les acteurs de l’ESS font un apport majeur en participant non seulement a la mise en application du programme (co-production), mais aussi a la definition de son architecture (co-construction).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".