MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248632048 · doi:10.7202/1074945ar

La place du patrimoine industriel dans les réhabilitations de friches

2021· article· fr· W4248632048 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Georges Gay

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parce que leur requalification rencontre nécessairement le problème du traitement des traces de l’activité disparue, les friches questionnent le rapport que la société entretient avec le patrimoine industriel. Scories à éliminer car portant la marque de l’archaïsme pour les politiques fordistes d’aménagement, les héritages de l’industrialisation ancienne sont devenus des atouts à exploiter pour se distinguer dans la concurrence territoriale généralisée qui prévaut depuis les années 1980. L’instrumentalisation opportuniste du décor industriel qui marque les opérations alors engagées, rencontre ses limites au tournant des années 2000. L’émergence d’une sensibilité au patrimoine industriel dans les territoires concernés, la montée des contraintes environnementales, signent l’épuisement des recettes éprouvées. La mobilisation des ressources académiques apparaît alors comme un palliatif de l’impuissance des aménageurs. Il en résulte un approfondissement sur le sens historique du legs qui dépasse les effets de la seule séduction du bâti et transforme le statut du patrimoine de plus value dérobée en argument d’aménagement. Les logiques de requalification restent cependant essentiellement économiques et ne se démarquent pas d’objectifs de revalorisation et de promotion territoriale imposés aux populations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.128

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.007
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.002

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207