Spatial proximity - social distance: the interethnic relations viewed through the neighbouring practices of the residents of a low income Montreal suburb sector \n*** \nProximite spatiale, distance sociale: les rapports interethnique dans un secteur deefavourise a Montreal vus a traverse les pratiques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Proximity is the subject of attention: local management, local democracy, exaltation of "locally elected representatives". But what does the notion of proximity, as a sociological concept, as a category of experience, as an instrument of action and political representation, or as spatial scale? How do you build, through everyday practices, for attachment to places, through the development of public projects ... ? The area is there a social space or territory intervention? A set of contributions between France and Québec. \n \nLa proximité fait l'objet de toutes les attentions : gestion de proximité, démocratie de proximité, exaltation des "élus de proximité". Mais que signifie la notion de proximité, comme concept sociologique, comme catégorie de l'expérience, comme instrument de l'action et de la représentation politiques, ou comme échelle spatiale ? Comment la construit-on, par des pratiques quotidiennes, par l'attachement à des lieux, par le développement de projets publics... ? Le quartier est-il un espace social ou un territoire d'intervention ? Un ensemble de contributions franco-québécoises.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".