Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se propose d’examiner ce que les études d’histoire localeet régionale ont apporté à notre connaissance de l’histoire religieuse du Québecet de voir comment, à travers ces études, a été posée la question des rapportsentre religion et culture régionale. Dans un premier temps, il met en lumièrele traitement très inégal qu’ont reçu les différentes régions du Québec dans lesmémoires de maîtrise et les thèses de doctorat soutenus dans les universitésquébécoises depuis 1975. Ensuite, il analyse le traitement réservé à l’histoirereligieuse dans les monographies de la collection « Les régions du Québec »publiées par l’Institut québécois de recherche sur la culture en montrant le partipris institutionnel qui a orienté les auteurs. Enfin, il souligne la pertinence ducadre local ou régional et propose quelques pistes de recherche pour l’étudedes cultures religieuses régionales.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".