MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7135052432 · doi:10.7202/1123714ar

L’expérience de la dépossession

2025· article· fr· W7135052432 on OpenAlexaffabout
Renaud Goyer

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue du CREMIS · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Sandbox (software development)Poison controlChild pornography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le contexte de la crise du logement et de la gentrification à Montréal, les évictions ont grandement augmenté dans les dix dernières années. À travers une ethnographie, menée dans le quartier de Saint-Henri auprès de locataires d’un même immeuble confronté·es à une éviction pour « travaux majeurs », l’article met en lumière les dimensions subjectives et symboliques de l’éviction, en soulignant comment ce processus s’inscrit dans des rapports sociaux inégalitaires. À partir de récits d’expériences, l’article documente les étapes de l’éviction et montre qu’elle ne se limite pas à un acte administratif, mais qu’elle implique une série de pratiques de violence symbolique. Ces pratiques, désignées comme les « quatre M » — menace, mensonge (ou manipulation), méconnaissance des droits, et mépris — affectent profondément la capacité des locataires à agir et à revendiquer leurs droits. Ces récits illustrent aussi le rôle central des rapports de pouvoir entre propriétaires et locataires, exacerbés par une méconnaissance généralisée du droit au logement et par la faiblesse des politiques publiques de défense de ce droit.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0190.033
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.318 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue du CREMISSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207