La relation Québec-Paris-Ottawa et la création de l'organisation internationale de la francophonie (1960-2005)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La relation Québec-Paris-Ottawa et la création de l’organisation internationale de la francophonie (1960-2005) C’est en 1880 que le géographe français Onésime Reclus invente le terme « francophonie », mais il faudra attendre 1986, soit cent six ans plus tard, pour que se tienne le premier Sommet de la Francophonie. Ces rencontres de pays de la Francophonie avaient été souhaitées depuis les années 1960 par le président du Sénégal, Léopold Sédar Senghor, par le président de la Tunisie, Habib Bourguiba, et le président du Niger, Hamani Diori. La création de l’Organisation internationale de la Francophonie sera une victime collatérale des relations politiques difficiles entre le gouvernement du Québec et d’Ottawa depuis la Révolution tranquille. Cet article retrace ici l’historique de la relation triangulaire Paris-Québec-Ottawa de la mise sur pied de l’Agence de coopération culturelle et technique à l’entente Mulroney-Johnson de 1985 qui permet au Québec de devenir un acteur décisionnel lors des sommets.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".