Le régime québécois de l’administration du bien d’autrui : un modèle pour la gouvernance des communs urbains ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les communs prennent de plus en plus d’importance dans le paysage juridique urbain. Cet article étudie la notion de communs urbains ainsi que les règles juridiques susceptibles de les organiser d’un point de vue comparatif. Il est suggéré que les communs urbains ont un contenu technique dont le régime juridique peut commencer à être précisé, à la frontière du droit public et du droit privé, entre appropriable et inappropriable. Une multiplicité de concepts et de techniques juridiques peuvent être utilisés ou remaniés – tant en droit privé qu’en droit public – pour organiser la gestion des communs urbains. Au-delà des partenariats public-communs et de certaines formes de propriété collective, on montrera que le régime de l’administration du bien d’autrui applicable à la fiducie québécoise peut être utilement mobilisé dans le cas du régime juridique des communs urbains, comme modèle alternatif à la propriété.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".