Notice bibliographique
Résumé
One of the significant problems investigated by social scientists in recent years is the question of how power is used in the community. The presence of power has generally been taken for granted; with the main research and analytical effort being concentrated on identifying and explaining the actions of those members of the community, i.e., the leaders, who are thought to possess power. Their ability to operate effectively within the community is generally interpreted as a reflection of their use of power, i.e., their ability to impose their will upon others, with or without having to overcome direct or indirect opposition in the process of doing so. Such studies as have been carried out have usually been conducted in communities which are easily identified as communities, such as a city or a town. There are, however, other types of communities, one of which is the ethnic community or sub-community. Ethnic communities, such as those generally found in Canada, are a result of the desire of the members of specific ethnic groups to continue to share some or all of their activities with people of the same origin. In such communities the actions of the leaders may be based on several factors, none of which is comparable to the power which leaders in other types of communities may possess or are believed to possess. Extensive field work was conducted in the Icelandic ethnic community in the Greater Vancouver area, beginning in the fall of 1965 and continuing for some three years. Data was gathered initially through interviews with the members of this community and subsequently by direct observation of and participation in the activities of this community and its leaders. The analysis of the data obtained indicates that the leaders of such a sub-community do not and cannot relie upon an ability to impose their will upon others. Put in other words, the leaders of such a sub-community lack power. Their ability to operate effectively is largely a result of the fact that their actions vis-a-vis the community are restricted to those which will receive voluntary support from the members of the community.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,014 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».