Défense de la nation contre prospérité de la discipline : engagement militaire et institutionnalisation de la psychologie au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Cet article examine les effets de l’engagement militaire des psychologues canadiens sur la montée de leur discipline et de leur profession à partir de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Il propose que le patronage et les usages militaires de la psychologie ont tout particulièrement favorisé l’extension de l’expertise psychologique hors de l’enseignement supérieur en permettant aux psychologues de s’approprier de nouveaux rôles, de gagner de nouveaux milieux, et de renforcer la valorisation de la recherche psychologique à l’échelle nationale. En se profilant sur la conjoncture extérieure, la psychologie a obtenu de nouvelles ressources (symboliques et matérielles) et prospéré socialement et institutionnellement. L’appréciation des effets de cette détermination exogène sur l’autonomie et sur la qualité du savoir disciplinaire et professionnel demeure une question d’ordre empirique, sociohistorique, ne relevant pas de motifs intrinsèques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".