Inovações sociais e governança regional no Quebec: que lugar resta aos novos movimentos sociais?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social movements have been important sources of change and social innovation in Québec, at the national level but also in each of its regions where they were imbedded. Grassroots social movements were the building blocks of what is now known as the “Québec model” of governance. This paper discusses whether a new generation of social movements could emerge in the Québec regions where new co-construction mechanisms for policies and programs have been integrated into regional governance structures. How does this new generation of social activists position itself in regard to these new policies and structures inherited from half a century of social movements led by their predecessors? The article will focus on structures and mechanisms of concertation of regional authorities with local/regional community groups. It is based on data collected in various research projects in seven Québec regions and on longstanding professional experiences and experiences in advocacy. A parallel will be drawn between the concept of social innovation inherent to social movements and the one adopted by regional authorities based upon Schumpeter’s economical analysis.Key words: regional governance, social movements, social innovation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".