MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023533419 · doi:10.3917/autr.018.0051

Rêver ensemble le départ. Construction du mythe chez les jeunes Somaliens réfugiés

2001· article· fr· W2023533419 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cécile Rousseau, Taher M. Said, Marie-Josée Gagné, Gilles Bibeau

Bibliographic record

VenueAutrepart · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Les jeunes réfugiés somaliens passent souvent par une longue transition prémigratoire avant de rejoindre leur destination finale. Durant ce difficile passage, ils construisent ensemble un mythe du départ qui structure les stratégies individuelles. La substitution du « voyage rêvé » au « voyage réel » en conduit quelques-uns, surtout si la transition se prolonge, à perdre contact avec la réalité et à basculer dans la folie. Les auteurs fondent leur démonstration sur trois arguments : a) le pastoralisme conduit les Somaliens à valoriser le voyage en tant que moyen de maturation ; b) le groupe d’âges développe une dynamique migratoire spécifique ; c) l’éthique de la solidarité fait participer un grand nombre de personnes à l’aventure des jeunes migrants. Au cours de l’attente, les jeunes s’adonnent à des séances de mastication du qaat durant lesquelles ils se racontent des histoires de migration réussies et leurs rêves de départ. Plus l’attente se prolonge, plus croît la frustration chez certains jeunes, chez qui le « rêve du départ » se transforme en un « rêve de folie », comme l’illustrent les deux cas rapportés. Cet article est basé sur des recherches de terrain faites dans la Corne de l’Afrique et au Canada.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.009
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutrepartSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207