<i>Omnia sunt communia</i> : un état des lieux des communs au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les communs sont des formes de coopération socioéconomique novatrices qui favorisent l’autonomie collective, l’autogestion et la réappropriation des moyens de subsistance. Au Québec, une multitude de projets collectifs depuis la dernière décennie s’inscrivent dans ce paradigme pour reconstruire du lien social et entamer une transition écologique. Dans cette introduction, nous situons ces initiatives collectives dans le vaste champ de recherche sur les communs en distinguant deux approches au sein de la littérature : les travaux issus de l’École de Bloomington, dans la lignée des recherches d’Elinor Ostrom, puis les perspectives anticapitalistes qui problématisent la relation entre les communs, les enclosures et le capitalisme. Dans un deuxième temps, nous faisons un survol historique des communs afin de mieux situer ces expériences dans le « temps long » de la société québécoise, en dialogue avec les initiatives d’économie sociale et d’autogestion au 19e et 20e siècle.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".