Espaces urbains relationnels. Commoning, gouvernance et projet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet ouvrage est né d'une prise de conscience: la nécessité de trouver des chemins qui mènent au développement local auto-soutenable et qui reconnectent les communautés avec leurs milieux. Repenser le projet urbain, dans cette perspective, devient une urgence, et plus encore, repenser le projet tout-court, comme une pratique collective d'engagement social et pas seulement comme un exercice solipsiste.L'articulation des chapitres permettra d'aborder les différentes facettes du sujet\ Les communs dans les plis de la culture du projet. \ Le système de relations entre morphologie, figures urbaines et innovation sociale\ La « tragédie du non-commun » (Dardot et Laval) dans les processus de conception de l'espace urbain\ Communautés de "urban care" et administration partagée: les recettes de la gouvernance urbaine à la micro échelle. Quels processus d'interscalarité?\ Gérer la non prévisibilité et l'incertitude par le projet d'usage•Avec les contributions de: Jean Attali, Manuel Bello Marcano, Simona Calvagna, Rémi Digonnet, Jeanne Drouet, Davide Rolfo, Giuseppina Scavuzzo, Marie-Thérèse Têtu-Delage, Chris Younes
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.005 |
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".