MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1809640850 · doi:10.7202/1030642ar

Le nucléaire dans la stratégie énergétique du Québec, 1963-2012

2015· article· fr· W1809640850 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mahdi Khelfaoui

Bibliographic record

VenueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article retrace l’évolution de la stratégie électronucléaire du gouvernement du Québec, entre 1963 et 2012. L’analyse se divise en trois périodes principales: l’émergence d’un programme nucléaire entre 1963 et 1970, un moment d’opposition politique sur son évolution à long terme entre 1971 et 1976, et son abandon progressif entre 1977 et 1983. À partir de 1983, avec la mise en service de la centrale Gentilly-2, et jusqu’à son arrêt définitif en 2012, aucun autre projet nucléaire d’envergure n’est entrepris dans la province. À partir de l'analyse de ces différentes périodes, nous mettons en évidence les raisons qui ont poussé le gouvernement du Québec à développer une industrie nucléaire locale. Nous discutons les divers facteurs, techniques, économiques et politiques qui ont conduit à un tel développement et au maintien de l’intérêt politique pour l’énergie nucléaire, malgré des investissements massifs en hydroélectricité durant les années soixante-dix. Enfin, nous mettons à jour les déterminants politiques qui ont poussé le gouvernement à abandonner la filière nucléaire à partir de 1977.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.194 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientia Canadensis Canadian Journal of the History of Science Technology and Medicine→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→