Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après avoir expliqué le rôle du « mythe québécois » - « jeunesse, richesse et minorité » - dans l’éveil de l’intérêt des chercheurs européens pour le Québec, l’auteur dresse une synthèse de l’état actuel des études québécoises en Belgique. Celles-ci investissent deux champs principaux, celui des sciences sociales et historique d’une part et celui de la littérature d’autre part, et s’organisent selon deux modèles distincts. Le premier, propre aux études littéraires qui sont plus homogènes et plus développées que les autres disciplines, est celui du réseau; ce modèle permet de mettre en contact des chercheurs belges, européens et québécois sans que ces derniers ne soient toujours au centre ou même présents dans les travaux. Le second, structuré en étoile, fait en sorte que les chercheurs belges et européens ne se rencontrent jamais qu’au coeur, c’est-à-dire au Québec. Enfin, l’auteur dresse le bilan des retombées non-scientifiques des études québécoises en Belgique.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".