MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416926379 · doi:10.36939/cjur/vol30no2/art383

Les adolescentes, tacticiennes de l’espace public : Usages engagés et expériences transgressives des adolescentes dans les parcs de Pointe-aux-Trembles (Montréal)

2022· article· W4416926379 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Sarah-Maude Cossette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of urban research · 2022
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversité de MontréalInstitut national de la recherche scientifique
KeywordsPublicsStatistical analysisPosition (finance)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude de cas se consacre aux adolescentes en tant qu’usagères de l’espace public dans les parcs du quartier Pointe-aux-Trembles à Montréal. À l’intersection d’enjeux sociaux liés au genre et à l’âge, elles cumulent une expérienced’occupation des espaces publics très différente de celle des femmes plus âgées ou des garçons de leur âge. Mobilisant les géographies féministes et l’anthropologie de la communication, nous suggérons dans ce texte que la position des adolescentes nécessite une attention particulière pour favoriser leur participation au développement des espaces publics et qu’elles y trouvent une place légitime. Les données empiriques proviennent d’observations et d’entrevues réalisées au cours de l’été 2019. Si les pratiques des adolescentes dans les parcs sont généralement sociales, l’aménagement et les équipements disponibles ne répondent pas à leurs besoins. Elles se retrouvent donc dans des situations de transgression des normes ou comme cibles des transgressions commises par d’autres usagers. Les adolescentes développent toutefois des tactiques d’occupation et d’interaction qui les positionnent comme usagères actives, expertes et expérimentées de l’espace public.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.398
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.081 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of urban researchSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207