MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382365306 · doi:10.7202/1100573ar

Communs et autogestion : redécouvrir les pratiques émancipatoires du Québec des années 1960-1980

2023· article· fr· W4382365306 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Marc D. Lachapelle, Dan Furukawa Marques

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches sociographiques · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Communs et autogestion sont des formes d’expérimentation d’organisations collectives qui émergent en réponse aux différentes crises que nous vivons. Cet article présente différentes approches des communs et en dégage les éléments qui nous semblent essentiels à une articulation avec la tradition de l’autogestion, notamment telle qu’elle s’est manifestée au Québec dans les années 1960 à 1980. En nous appuyant sur le travail de recherche sur les pratiques émancipatoires mené par Gabriel Gagnon et Marcel Rioux dans les années 1980, nous faisons ressortir les pratiques et enjeux organisationnels qui caractérisent les communs et l’autogestion à cette époque. De plus, nous mobilisons leur concept de transférabilité afin d’illustrer le potentiel émancipatoire des organisations autogérées. Nous démontrons que les agencements organisationnels observés (configurations, pratiques, conventions) sont une dimension essentielle et singulière dans la gestion des tensions internes et externes engendrées par la relation conflictuelle entre l’autogestion/les communs et le capitalisme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.186
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.210 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches sociographiquesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207