Bibliographic record
Abstract
En France, les pratiques ancestrales de canoë suscitent actuellement un certain regain parmi les pratiquants. L’embarcation née au Canada réapparaît sous une forme contemporaine autorisant les mêmes usages de la rivière que le canoë contemporain. En Amérique du Nord, l’histoire du canot de rivière renvoie aux expéditions et à la conquête des grands espaces. L’imaginaire accolé à cette pratique repose sur l’aventure et la vie au grand air. Si le canoeing s’est surtout développé à partir des conquêtes territoriales britanniques, à la charnière entre les XIX e et XX e siècles, cette embarcation nommée open canoë (O.C.) s’est institutionnalisée en France sur un modèle hérité de la culture canadienne. En revenant sur la genèse de l’O.C., mouvement de réhabilitation des traditions depuis une vingtaine d’années en Europe, il s’agit de comprendre comment ce revivalisme a pu éclore. Pour qualifier cet univers de référence, nous avons eu recours au processus de sportivisation ancré dans l’histoire du continent américain. Cet article pose la question de savoir s’il y a rupture ou continuité avec la tradition canadienne dans ce mouvement de résurgence d’une pratique ancienne.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".