MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7001654318

Les épreuves performatives de la concertation de quartier : le cas de la Revitalisation urbaine intégrée du quartier Hochelaga

2021· dissertation· fr· W7001654318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEspaceINRS Institutional Digital Repository (Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique) · 2021
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)EuropeanisationPublic spaceESPACE
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les travaux québécois et montréalais portant sur la planification urbaine et la concertation de \nquartier ne montrent pas clairement le sens que revêtent les formes de communication qui \néchappent à la discussion formelle et procédurale, ni ne saisissent pleinement le caractère \néprouvant de la prise de parole chez les participants. Ils ne montrent pas non plus combien les \népreuves reliées à la prise de parole ont un impact sur l’évolution du processus de concertation et \nles résultats qui en ressortent en termes de problématisation, de prises de décision, de plans \nd’action, du développement d’une vision, d’engagement de budgets et de création de partenariats \npour développer des projets concrets dans les espaces publics en réponse aux problèmes publics \nvécus localement. Dans ce contexte, nous postulons à l’instar d’autres chercheurs que toute \nperformance en public, même les plus ordinaires, fonctionne comme une mise à l’épreuve, en \nactionnant un test à l’issue duquel il est possible d’élucider les « compétences » de l’acteur au \nsein du dispositif de concertation. Ce faisant, l’approche microsociologique à laquelle cette \nenquête se rattache met l’accent sur les contributions communicationnelles et interactionnelles \ndes acteurs lors des rencontres des partenaires du programme de revitalisation urbaine intégrée \n(RUI) Hochelaga. \nCette thèse cherche à montrer comment ces épreuves ont une incidence beaucoup plus marquée \nqu’on pourrait le penser en premier lieu. Je souhaite faire la démonstration que prendre la parole \nen public dans le cadre de concertation de quartier telle que la RUI Hochelaga, fait également \napparaître un acteur politique tantôt en pleine maîtrise de son espace de parole, tantôt \nincompétent et incapable de convaincre son auditoire de la validité de ses arguments. Cet acteur, \nje veux le faire apparaître à partir des figures de l’action qu’on retrouve chez Erving Goffman et \nlui faire suivre le chemin privilégié par la philosophie du pragmatisme étasunien : la \nreconstruction sociale et le changement. La méthodologie par observation directe, guidée par un \nguide d’observation, a permis de préciser le travail d’observation sur le terrain afin d’identifier et \nde nommer différentes actions à travers la prise de parole des partenaires de la RUI Hochelaga. Les épreuves performatives apparaissent dès lors que prendre la parole en public intervient dans \nun espace normé qui admet une certaine façon de participer et en déprécie d’autres. Le sujet est \nalors mis à l’épreuve par laquelle il doit montrer qu’il a les compétences nécessaires pour faire \npartie du groupe. Évidemment, il ne sera pas rejeté comme tel. Il sera plutôt invité à changer de \nton et à ajuster son propos à ce qui est attendu des autres participants. En un mot, l’épreuve existe \ncomme la frontière entre l’agentivité de l’acteur et les normes, et réciproquement, entre la norme \nqui n’est pas systématiquement immuable et qui peut bien évoluer et se transformer par l’acteur, \nqui découvre toutes sortes de façons pour la faire plier. Quebec and Montreal’s work on urban planning and neighbourhood consensus-building does not \nclearly demonstrate the significance of forms of communication that escape formal and \nprocedural discussion, nor does it fully appreciate the challenging nature of speaking in public. In \naddition, the literature does not show how the stress-inducing process of speaking in public have \nan impact on the evolution of the concertation process and its results in terms of \nproblematization, decision-making, action plans, vision planning, budget commitment and the \ncreation of partnerships to develop concrete projects in public spaces in response to public \nproblems experienced locally. In this context, following other researchers, we postulate that any \nperformance in public, even the most ordinary, works like a test from which it is possible to \nelucidate the actor’s “competences” within the consultation mechanism. The application of this \nmicrosociological approach to the case of the Integrated Urban Revitalization Programme (RUI) \nin Hochelaga, Montreal, reveals the communicative and interactive contributions of actors \ninvolved in partner meetings. \nThis thesis seeks to show how these tests have a much greater impact than one might think at first \nglance. I would therefore like to demonstrate that speaking in public in the context of \nneighborhood consultations such as the RUI Hochelaga also reveals a political actor who is \nsometimes in full control of his speaking space, sometimes incompetent and incapable of \nconvincing his audience of the validity of his arguments. I want to show this actor through the \nfigures of action found in Erving Goffman and make him follow the path favored by the \nphilosophy of American pragmatism: social reconstruction and change. The methodology of \ndirect observation, guided by an observation grid, has made it possible to specify the work of \nobservation in the field in order to identify and name different actions through the speeches of the \npartners of the RUI Hochelaga. The concept of performative challenge (épreuves performatives) appear when speaking in public \ntakes place in a normative space that admits a certain way of participating and depreciates others. \nThe subject is then put to the test by which he or she must show that he or she has the necessary \nskills to be part of the group. Obviously, he or she will not be rejected as such. Rather, he or she \nwill be asked to change his or her tone and adjust his or her words to what is expected of the \nother participants. In a word, the test exists as the boundary between the actor's agility and the \nnorms, and conversely, between the norm which is not systematically immutable and which may \nwell evolve and be transformed by the actor, who discovers all sorts of ways to bend it.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.002

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.295 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEspaceINRS Institutional Digital Repository (Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique)Same topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207