MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982970549 · doi:10.3828/bjcs.2011.10

Un conte patrimonial: l'invention du village canadien

2011· article· en· W1982970549 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucie K. Morisset

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Canadian Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismHumanitiesIdentity (music)Cultural heritageEthnologyCollective memoryArtPolitical scienceEconomyHistoryArchaeologyLawAestheticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article explore la genèse du paysage construit 'patrimonial' québécois, c'est-à-dire des monuments et des ensembles bâtis crédités de porter l'identité et la mémoire du Québec, plus précisément du Canada français. On y observe en effet, par quelques fenêtres ouvertes sur le XX e siècle, l'investissement d'une signification française dans quelques hauts lieux québécois engendrés à des fins aussi touristiques que patrimoniales, ce qui explique, comme on le découvrira simultanément, le caractère centripète de ce processus d'invention identitaire, enclenché dans les territoires de villégiature et décalqué depuis l'arrière-pays vers les villes. This article explores the genesis of the built heritage landscape in Quebec, namely monuments and built ensembles deemed to incarnate the identity and collective memory of Quebec – or more specifically French Canada. Using examples from the twentieth century, we look at how several famous Quebec sites, developed for both tourism and heritage purposes, were endowed with symbolic 'Frenchness', thus illustrating the centripetal nature of the identity creation process initiated in tourism areas in Quebec's hinterland and subsequently transferred to cities.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 studies0.0210.017
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.143 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Canadian StudiesSame topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207