Les stratégies municipales pour la transformation d'un mégaprojet en situation d'échec: le cas du site aéroportuaire de Mirabel au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research on mega‐projects gives minimal consideration to municipal stakeholders and the municipal level as a sphere of action, or to decision making about and adaptation to these projects. It is also only recently that attention has been paid to the duration of projects and the roles of a variety of stakeholders in their progression. Using writings on development paths and agency, we show that a project can be reinitiated after its failure. In addition to being just a phase of development during the life of the project, failure can be transformed into a window of opportunity to rethink the project and its governance and allow other stakeholders to take part in its transformation. Based on the case study of Mirabel airport, its failure and subsequent redevelopment, we studied the relationship between the development strategies implemented by the airport managers and those of the municipal stakeholders. We show that while the initial airport project profoundly disrupted the municipal territory of Mirabel, its transformation into an aeronautical industrial site is mostly perceived and supported positively by municipal stakeholders, having enabled a new dual trajectory of territorial and industrial development.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".