MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1698900968 · doi:10.7202/1000915ar

L’édition québécoise pour la jeunesse au XXe siècle. Une histoire du livre et de la lecture située au confluent de la tradition et de la modernité

2011· article· fr· W1698900968 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Suzanne Pouliot

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobe Revue internationale d’études québécoises · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiterature and Culture Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au XXe siècle, l’édition québécoise pour la jeunesse s’est développée au gré des incitatifs législatifs, des transformations sociales et des programmes ministériels. La loi Choquette, promulguée en 1925, puis abolie en 1965, la Loi de 1943 sur la scolarité obligatoire, les programmes d’études de 1979, 1994 et 2001 et la Politique de la lecture et du livre, énoncée en 1998, ont eu, à leur façon, des retombées sur le développement editorial. Au coeur de ces mutations nourries par le discours sur la lecture des prescripteurs qui ponctue régulièrement le dernier siècle surgit, au fil des huit décennies étudiées, une image éditoriale de la jeunesse. Le monde de l’édition réagit généralement de façon rapide aux évolutions du public puisqu’il ne dispose pas, comme l’école, d’un public captif et qu’il doit sans cesse trouver ses lecteurs. À quelques variantes près, les idées qui ont traversé le XXe siècle se retrouvent dans les collections et séries créées pour un lectorat diversifié de 0 à 16 ans.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.008

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobe Revue internationale d’études québécoisesSame topicLiterature and Culture StudiesFrench-language works237,207