Le Québec dans le concert canadien des prix de développement durable
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sur la scène de l'architecture internationale, les prix et distinctions axés sur les pratiques de construction vertes et écologiques et le développement durable sont en croissance depuis plus d’une décennie (Bonenberg & Kapliński, 2018; Oliveira & Sexton, 2016; Owen & Lorrimar-Shanks, 2015). Ce phénomène est également significatif au Canada qui a vu apparaitre plus de 170 nouveaux prix reliés au développement durable ces 20 dernières années. \n \nLe contexte et l’histoire des prix canadiens de développement durable est assez complexe. De nouveaux prix sont toujours régulièrement créés tandis que d'autres disparaissent, des programmes de prix sont transférés entre les différents organisateurs et de nouveaux partenariats entraînent des fusions entre programmes. Cet article propose un bref aperçu de l’émergence de ces prix en comparant des cas attribués depuis 2010, tant au Québec, en Colombie-Britannique qu’en Nouvelle-Ecosse.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.001 |
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".