Qu’y a-t-il dans une communauté ? L’exemple des groupes communautaires québécois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ce texte vise à explorer un exemple de sentiment communautaire qu’on peut concevoir comme relativement archétypique. On cherche ainsi à mieux comprendre comment peut se créer ce sentiment dont le « sentiment d’appartenance locale » est un sous-exemple. Cela permettra de mieux circonscrire ce que produit, selon plusieurs, la société civile : la capacité à dépasser le chacun-pour-soi, ce qui semble indispensable à un développement consciemment voulu. Après quelques considérations de méthode, on abordera la dimension « externe » des organisations communautaires, c’est à dire leur rapport à l’État et aux autres groupes. Suivra une analyse de leur dimension « interne », c’est à dire des rapports entre les utilisateurs de ces groupes, d’une part, et des relations entre ces utilisateurs et les animateurs des organisations, d’autre part. La conclusion tentera de montrer comment cet exemple peut avoir valeur illustrative et inspirer une réflexion renouvelée sur le développement local.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".