MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386637894 · doi:10.3917/esra.005.0029

Philanthropie de changement social et démarches de développement territorial au Québec : quels types de proximité caractérisent leurs rapports ?

2023· article· fr· W4386637894 on OpenAlexaffabout
Serigne Touba Mbacké Gueye, Lucie Morin, Denis Bourque, André-Anne Parent, René Lachapelle, Sonia Racine, Stéphane Grenier, Dominic Foisy, Christian Jetté, Sébastien Savard, Sylvie Jochems

Bibliographic record

VenueÉcrire le social · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)University of OttawaUniversité du Québec en OutaouaisUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La présence de la philanthropie de changement social dans le financement des démarches de développement territorial devient de plus en plus importante. Moins restrictive et plus flexible, elle a ainsi tendance à suppléer aux subventions étatiques souvent jugées plus strictes, voire contraignantes, tout en étant moins accessibles. Même si cette nouvelle propension vers la philanthropie semble un atout pour le développement des communautés, elle n’en demeure pas moins pour autant exempte de questionnement. Cet article fait état des formes et des impacts de la relation de proximité entre la philanthropie de changement social et les démarches de développement territorial qui regroupent des acteurs individuels et collectifs engagés pour améliorer les conditions de vie de la population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉcrire le socialSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207