Le temps et l’espace comme catégories d’analyse chez les historiens et les géographes québécois (1984-2002)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article vise à vérifier dans quelle mesure la recherche sur le changement social et culturel dans la société québécoise a intégré l’espace et le temps comme catégories d’analyse fondamentales. L’examen des deux principales revues consacrées à l’histoire et à la géographie au Québec révèle que l’usage simultané du temps et de l’espace comme catégories d’analyse a eu tendance à décliner au cours des vingt dernières années, même si une reprise modeste se manifeste en fin de période, du moins chez les historiens. Diverses explications sont proposées en conclusion : raréfaction circonstancielle des ressources, recul de l’histoire sociale et économique et de la géographie économique et régionale, émergence en corollaire de nouveaux thèmes de prédilection chez les chercheurs des sciences humaines, perte de prestige des approches macrosociales au profit d’explications centrées sur les perceptions de l’acteur individuel, etc.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".