Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article montre un fait de transmission de savoir entre deux urbanistes, René Danger et son fils Paul, tous deux membres de la Société des plans régulateurs de villes fondée par le père et connue pour sa vitalité en matière de confection de plans. La tendance de René Danger à théoriser sa pratique se voit aussi chez le fils Paul. Les deux s’engagent dans la rédaction de manuels d’urbanisme, objets de cet article. L’objectif sera ici de montrer combien René et Paul Danger adoptent des démarches proches. À partir de la lecture de ces manuels et de l’analyse des discours qu’ils véhiculent, nous dégagerons les principes partagés par les deux urbanistes. Ainsi mis en perspective, mais pas comparés, les deux écrits révéleraient-ils des cheminements similaires en matière de pratiques urbanistiques ? Si oui, quels seraient les éléments ou principes marqueurs de ces démarches qui, soulignons-le, sont encore considérés d’actualité ?
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".