La participation publique en contexte d’aménagement forestier
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La participation publique dans un contexte d’aménagement forestier fait dorénavant partie intégrante des politiques forestières contemporaines fondées sur le développement durable. À cet effet, une diversité d’outils de participation publique ont été développés à travers le monde. Ce projet de recherche porte sur le principal outil de participation publique utilisé en milieu forestier du Québec (Canada) que sont les tables locales de gestion intégrée des ressources et du territoire (TLGIRT). Grâce à un sondage en ligne distribué à l’ensemble des membres des 34 TLGIRT de la province, il a été possible de dresser un bilan de la perception des membres sur le fonctionnement, la communication, les travaux et la participation individuelle aux TLGIRT. Les résultats de l’étude ont permis de comprendre comment la participation publique, à travers les TLGIRT, façonne les relations de pouvoir entre les parties prenantes dans un contexte d’aménagement forestier.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".