Prendre sa place pour survivre et affirmer son unicité Le système de loisir public sur la place publique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Forum quebecois du loisir, tenu le 1er avril a l’invitation du Conseil quebecois du loisir, a aborde le theme du loisir public et associatif sur la place publique, theme hautement strategique et nevralgique dans un monde ou plusieurs enjeux sont en competition pour obtenir l’attention de l’opinion publique et des decideurs et pour etre consideres comme significatifs, pour ne pas dire prioritaires dans les attentes des uns et les decisions des autres. Ce bulletin presente l’essentiel d’un article de l’OQL paru dans la Revue AGORA FORUM (Ete 2011, vol.34 #2) qui decoule des discussions du Forum et des travaux du comite d’orientation du Forum qui a tenu un seminaire preparatoire avec des experts en communications, relations publiques, medias et lobby. Il traite des enjeux et des justifications qui amenent le loisir sur la place publique et examine la capacite et les defis du systeme quebecois de loisir public et associatif pour agir activement et avec susses sur la place publique.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.003 |
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".