Territorialité : ampleur, complexité et variabilité des entendements et usages d’un concept-clé de la géographie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans le but d’évoquer notre manière particulière d’être en relation avec un territoire et de connoter notre façon de l’habiter, les géographes ont développé le concept de territorialité. Or, ce concept est l’objet d’interprétations et d’utilisations peu uniformes et cohérentes. Nous entendons réfléchir sur le flou conceptuel et opérationnel qui persiste. Pour ce faire, dans cet article, nous distinguons et caractérisons, d’abord au moyen d’une vaste recension, les entendements et usages de la territorialité en géographie à partir de lectures politiques, sociales et culturelles qui en sont pratiquées en anglais et en français. Nous éprouvons ensuite les registres de sens qui se dégagent des démarches cognitives animant les textes examinés pour illustrer l’ampleur, la complexité et la dynamique des conceptions de la territorialité en géographie.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".