Les sciences régionales au Québec : une régiologie particulière
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au Québec, les sciences régionales comme bien d’autres disciplines chevauchent en permanence, de façon évolutive, constructive et réciproque le savoir et le concret. On vit une symbiose originale entre la théorie et le réel. Cet article dresse la toile de fond dans laquelle cette discipline évolue au Québec depuis la fin des années 1950. Il tente de mettre en évidence les éléments qui distinguent les sciences régionales du Québec des sciences régionales plus conventionnelles de la communauté scientifique internationale. Quelques comparaisons sont envisagées. Une revue historique montre comment cette symbiose a su imposer des diagnostiques, des traitements et donc des politiques qui à leur tour peuvent dégager des idées et des modèles. Beaucoup d’exemples montrent comment ce mariage entre le concret et la théorie a permis de construire rationnellement les sciences régionales qui par nature ont toujours cherché à demeurer transparentes et utiles pour la province.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".