MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042284425 · doi:10.7202/016873ar

Un ménage petit bourgeois du Québec de la Belle Époque 

2007· article· fr· W2042284425 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Maude-Emmanuelle Lambert

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d histoire de l Amérique française · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette étude analyse et illustre certaines facettes du mode de vie de la petite bourgeoisie en milieu rural et périphérique, dans le premier tiers du XXe siècle. Elle met en scène le ménage d’un marchand général du village du Quai de Rimouski entre 1897 et 1929, à travers l’étude de ses valeurs, de ses pratiques culturelles et de consommation. À cette fin, nous avons utilisé diverses sources et méthodes telles que des livres de comptabilité (dont un livre de comptes comprenant la comptabilité privée d’un ménage), des enquêtes orales et des photographies familiales. Notre analyse permet de dégager des tendances de consommation, d’identifier des comportements et de comprendre certaines pratiques de cette famille dans la gestion quotidienne du ménage et de l’entreprise. Elle offre aussi des indications sur certains aspects plus « privés » de la vie de ses membres, notamment sur leurs lectures préférées et leurs pratiques en matière vestimentaire. Partant d’une perspective de microhistoire, nous avons cherché à reconstituer le quotidien d’une famille de la petite bourgeoisie rurale dont les pratiques sont marquées du sceau de la respectabilité et se situent à la charnière de deux mondes, rural et urbain.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d histoire de l Amérique françaiseSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207