Accorderie and Le Jardin Universel (JEU) in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper compares two of the most successful community currency systems in the province of Quebec, Canada: l’Accorderie and Le Jardin d’Echange Universel (JEU). The paper compares their founding principles and organisational structures, and their mechanisms and mediums of exchange. While the former is quite well-institutionalised and attempts to operate professionally, ‘within the system’, the latter is a volunteer-run initiative with more ambiguous status. The paper attempts to evalute their impacts, where data is available, and concludes that while both exchange systems have their pros and cons, a definite advantage for l’Accorderie is that its legal status gives them better access to funding which ultimately permits them to offer their members the means by which to form an economic strategy in both the informal economy, through exchanges, and in the formal economy, through microcredit and participating in the monthly buyer’s group. This is particularly important to its poorer members where every dollar saved by making local exchanges can be used to improve their material well-being in the formal economy.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".