La question d'une tradition sociologique en Acadie : un aperçu<sup>1</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La présente étude examine la question d'une tradition sociologique en Acadie. L'auteur passe en revue trois grandes périodes de la présence sociologique en Acadie. Une première période, allant de la toute fin des années 1930 aux années 1960, marque l'échafaudage institutionnel d'une première sociologie en Acadie. Une seconde période, allant des années 1960 aux années 1980, constitue pour la sociologie en Acadie une période de crise, de contestation et de redéfinition. Finalement, la troisième grande période, du début des années 1980 à aujourd'hui, marque l'éclatement de la discipline. On termine le texte en se demandant, à la lumière de ces trois périodes marquantes, s'il existe vraiment, en Acadie, une tradition sociologique distincte. The present study examines the question of a sociological tradition in Acadie. The author focuses on three large periods of sociological presence in Acadie. In the first phase, between the end of the thirties to the first years of the sixties, sociology became institutionally rooted in Acadie. A second period took place between the early sixties and the early eighties, when sociology experienced a period of crisis, contestation and redefinition. Finally, the third and final period, from the early eighties to the present, marks the fragmentation of the discipline. The present study ends by asking the following question: does a sociological tradition truly exist in Acadie?
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".