Une approche méso de l’économie sociale et solidaire, comparaison franco-québécoise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce projet de numéro de la revue Interventions économiques / Papers in Political Economy propose d’ouvrir une discussion sur l’approche méso de l’ESS, autour de comparaisons franco-québécoises, dans le champ de l’économie politique institutionnaliste, et en dialogue avec d’autres disciplines (sciences politiques, gestion, etc.). En quoi la mésoanalyse peut permettre d’appréhender plus finement les reconfigurations actuelles et les dynamiques favorisant/contraignant le développement de l’ESS comme espace relativement autonome, différencié et interdépendant avec le régime macroéconomique ? Sont attendus des comparaisons entre la France et le Québec avec des articles qui analysent les situations de l’ESS française ou québécoise voire les comparent ou en s’intéressant à certains secteurs, en considérant les évolutions des politiques publiques, leur rapport aux territoires, aux mouvements sociaux et aux capitalismes propres à chaque espace.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".