La controverse sur la densification au Québec : un choc des valeurs sur la forme de l’habitat et des milieux de vie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au sortir de la 6e vague de la pandémie de COVID-19, on a assisté au printemps 2022 à une controverse soutenue dans la presse écrite sur les questions d’étalement urbain et de densification résidentielle au Québec. Le débat faisait rage dans le sillage des échanges qui entourent les grands projets de transport à Québec et à Montréal ainsi qu’à la suite de la conversation nationale sur l’urbanisme et l’aménagement des territoires, qui a précédé l’adoption de la Politique nationale de l’architecture et de l’aménagement du territoire du Québec. Ayant en arrière-plan l’enjeu des changements climatiques, l’approche de la densification douce et des quartiers axés sur les transports collectifs est proposée par la Politique, mais elle ne semble pas faire l’unanimité au sein de la population, voire parmi les élus du parti Coalition avenir Québec à l’Assemblée nationale. Attardons-nous donc à ce choc des valeurs à l’aide d’une revue de presse sur le sujet.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".