MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996968909 · doi:10.4000/abpo.1343

Espaces sacrés, distribution des corps et groupes sociaux dans le Québec rural des 18e et 19e siècles

2003· article· fr· W1996968909 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ollivier Hubert

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Bretagne et des pays de l Ouest · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesESPACEArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À partir de la bipolarisation méticuleuse introduite par la liturgie rigoriste québécoise dans l’espace paroissial s’élabore une construction de l’espace social marquée par la ségrégation. Il s’agit, dans le cadre de cette contribution, le poser quelques balises en vue d’une étude systématique de la distribution des corps dans l’espace durant les événements cultuels et d’évaluer la portée heuristique, pour l'histoire sociale, d’une telle étude. On pose en premier lieu les structures culturelles, matérielles et symboliques qui donnent sens à l’espace liturgique paroissial : il est divisé (sacré/profane) et orienté par la présence du saint sacrement. Puis on prend appui sur quelques espaces religieusement connotés pour dégager la construction sociale produite par l'usage : le choeur comme lieu masculin, la nef comme représentation de la société paroissiale, le cimetière comme dispositif de construction de l'altérité. Les lieux sacrés permettent une répartition des individus dans l'espace et contribuent à représenter et instituer les appartenances, les positions et les exclusions. L’analyse historique des positions spatiales est donc en ce contexte le moyen d’une microhistoire sociale.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de Bretagne et des pays de l OuestSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207