Concertation et espoirs sociaux : le cas de l’approvisionnement en eau potable en milieux ruraux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En théorie, la concertation apparaît comme étant une approche prometteuse pour permettre l’exploration collective des enjeux, l’identification des besoins et l’élaboration de toutes les étapes de réflexion. Or, qu’en est-il en pratique? Cet article souhaite mettre en lumière des défis, des particularités et des obstacles rencontrés dans la mise en place de trois démarches de concertation en milieux ruraux sur le thème de l’approvisionnement en eau potable. En mobilisant le cadre théorique des espoirs sociaux, cet examen vise particulièrement à discuter de la pertinence de la concertation et de ses limites dans un contexte où la mise en place (ou non) de ces projets d’infrastructures est susceptible de modifier la qualité de vie des citoyens. Les résultats donnent à penser que la concertation peut être utile pour accompagner des collectivités, si ces dernières ont les capacités sociales et culturelles d’aspirer à des solutions qui peuvent déroger d’un cadre règlementaire.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".