Bibliographic record
Abstract
La Francophonie canadienne est bien en vie. Elle trouve son origine dans le Canada français et elle est le résultat des grands changements que celui-ci a connus au cours du dernier demi-siècle. Le Canada français était tout aussi unitaire que le Canada anglo-britannique. La Francophonie canadienne se distingue par la complexité de sa francité, par sa modernité, par son urbanité. Elle est tout en nuances, inclusive, un ensemble de communautés provinciales, régionales, locales qui se savent légitimes et dont on reconnaît la légitimité, tant sur les plans historico-géographique et sociopolitique que sur les plans constitutionnel et juridique. Elle a changé au cours des décennies et elle continue, et continuera, de se transformer, perméable aux courants culturels. Elle est devenue un ensemble dont le coeur est constitué par les francophones « de souche », entouré de francophones de langue officielle, d’anglophones d’origine culturelle française et de sympathie française. C’est ce qui fait sa grande richesse.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".