Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acteur archétypique du paysage construit, le bungalow, cette maison pavillonnaire construite en milliers d’exemplaires partout autour des villes, a – en dépit de sa standardisation – engendré un paysage particulièrement varié et profondément québécois. Ce premier de deux articles analyse la naissance du bungalow au Canada et le contexte, depuis la Première Guerre mondiale, de son apparition, en vue de jeter des bases à l’exploration de la « québécisation » du bungalow, au travers du phénomène de son succès et de son importante diffusion, des paramètres matériels de son appropriation, du corpus imaginaire de ses représentations et de la réappropriation dont cette antithèse du monument historique peut aujourd’hui paraître victime. En effet, si le bungalow tint sa vaste popularité du large éventail de ses appropriations possibles, sa survie est aujourd’hui mise en cause par le principe de sa construction standardisée même, sous la pression foncière sur l’immédiate périphérie urbaine qu’il a jadis investie. Support mémoriel paradoxal de notre XXe siècle, l’omniprésent bungalow, unique et pluriel à la fois, entame-t-il le chant du cygne?
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".