Découvrir, étudier et mettre en valeur la culture matérielle : dialectique entre cultures populaire et savante, l'exemple québécois au 20e siècle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Popular culture and academic culture are mutually supportive. The discussion of the concerns and motivations of the academic community to uncover one's heritage, to study it and raise its profile, provides an opportunity to examine, from an ethnological point of view, the meaning of objects in popular and academic culture along with the dynamics between them. In search of local, regional and national distinctive characteristics, some supporters of culture, intellectuals for the most part, met inhabitants of particular regions to discover their habits and customs. Academic circles and governments draw up inventories, and develop and promote cultural and socio-economic characteristics. In this way, they return to the people what they had yielded up, and in so doing, help them rediscover certain facets of their culture. Resume La culture populaire et la culture savante se nourrissent. L'evocation des preoccupations et des motivations des chercheurs a la decouverte du patrimoine, a son etude et a sa mise en valeur donne l'occasion d'aborder, dans une perspective ethnologique, la signification des objets dans les cultures populaire et savante ainsi que la dynamique qu'entretiennent l'une et l'autre entre elles. En quete de particularites locales, regionales et nationales, quelques passionnes dela culture, des intellectuels pour la plupart, ont rencontre des gens du terroir pour decouvrir leurs us et coutumes, leurs savoirs et leurs pratiques. Les milieux universitaires et les gouvernements realisent des inventaires, developpent et mettent en valeur des caracteres culturels et socio-economiques, redonnant ainsi a la population ce qu'elle avait livre, et meme plus, en lui faisant redecouvrir certains pans de sa culture.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".