La RMR de Saguenay, entre croissance et décroissance, perceptions et interventions des acteurs locaux
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since around twenty years, the Saguenay CMA seems to have underwent a population decline and important economic transformations, wich would have confronted citizens and local actors to a situation of a possible decline. In a context of an ageing population generalized to the whole Quebec, the Saguenay CMA can be seen as a precursor territory of the population decline phenomenon for a medium-sized city. It’s the scale and the extent of the phenomenon wich seem to have become more important. In this context, is it possible to reverse the situation from an urban planning based on growth, to a planning that takes into account the possiblity of the decrease and the ageing of the population, as well as the reorganization of econimic activities? The analysis of the actors’s speech, who are involved in planning, economic development and politics, raise the question of the difficulty to conceive the decrease of the population and the economic tranformations, not as an occasional phenomenon, but as a possibly structural phenomenon that may last over time. The subject of the decline seems to generate a form of discomfort among the actors, going even to the complete reject of the situation as a possible reality. For several, the eventuality of a generalized decline is inconceivable, the decrease can be perceived as a political failure. It appears that most of the strategies put in place to correct the situation, are based on the goal of a return to the growth. From the signs in the built framework, through the strategy of territorial marketing and municipal interventionism, until the appearance of urban brownfields, the impacts of the population decrease and the economic transformations seems, for the greater part very subtile, but to be present on the territory of the CMA. The shrinking cities phenomenon is observed in this study according to a new approach that confronts the actors’s speech, the territory reality and the analysis of the economic and demographic dynamics. It is thus an exploratory research wich tries to question the current way of thinking the urban growth.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".