MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530354109 · doi:10.7202/1029022ar

Regards des habitants de Kangiqsujuaq sur leurs albums de photographies de famille (1960-2012)

2015· article· fr· W1530354109 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Véronique Antomarchi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article présente un terrain effectué en juillet 2012 dans un village du Nunavik (Nord Québec) dans le cadre d’un projet sur l’imagibilité inuit. Mené en accord avec la municipalité de Kangiqsujuaq, ce projet a fédéré une dizaine d’habitants qui ont choisi et commenté quelques photos de leurs albums de famille. Les 35 clichés recueillis ont été scannés et déposés à l’Institut culturel inuit Avataq à Montréal en vue d’assurer la protection et la conservation de ce patrimoine photographique « ordinaire ». Ces clichés ont ensuite été agrandis et viennent de faire l’objet d’une exposition dans la communauté afin de permettre la transmission intergénérationnelle autour de la mémoire collective, familiale, individuelle des habitants du village. L’enjeu essentiel de ce projet repose sur la prise en compte du regard des habitants qui permet une représentation plus appropriée du territoire. La question est de savoir dans quelle mesure ce patrimoine photographique pourrait rentrer en ligne de compte dans l’aménagement muséographique des centres de transmission des parcs nationaux, comme ici, en ce qui concerne le parc des Pingualuit, présenté comme l’icône touristique du Nunavik.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.394
GPT teacher head0.579
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologie et SociétésSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207