MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1866141519 · doi:10.3917/rf.012.0113

Quand les parents choisissent noms et prénoms : pratiques et rites de nomination au Québec du XXI e siècle

2015· article· fr· W1866141519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Laurence Charton, Denise Lemieux

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches familiales · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesNominationRiteArtPhilosophyEthnologyPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’octroi d’un nom au nouveau-né s’inscrit depuis longtemps au sein des rites d’accueil qui confèrent une identité à un nouveau membre en lui assignant des liens familiaux et sociaux. Jadis encadré au Québec par les rites religieux du baptême célébré dans les jours suivant la naissance, rite qui faisait office d’inscription civile jusqu’au milieu du XX e siècle, les choix d’un prénom et d’un nom de famille semblent aujourd’hui circonscrits dans la rédaction et l’envoi de la déclaration de naissance par les parents au cours du mois qui suit l’accouchement. En nous appuyant sur l’analyse qualitative des témoignages de 25 parents concernant le choix du prénom et du nom de l’enfant, ses moments et contextes, nous verrons que divers changements entourant la formation du couple, la transformation des rites familiaux et la sécularisation du cadre de nomination ainsi que les possibilités inédites de transmission de deux noms de famille, font du choix du prénom et du nom de famille, une activité symbolique d’attente de l’enfant et de construction du couple, où sont redéfinis par les sujets en interaction les liens de filiation et les liens généalogiques jadis prescrits par l’institution.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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 head0.371
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.081 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches familialesSame topicNames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchFrench-language works237,207