La tradition de Chicago et l’étude des relations entre les races
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'étude des relations entre les races, prises au sens culturel, est un aspect longtemps négligé de la tradition sociologique de Chicago entre 1910 et 1960. Pourtant Park, dès le début du XXe siècle, les étudie comme des relations réciproques entre groupes ethniques majoritaires et minoritaires. Cet article insiste sur le caractère hypothétique, pour Park, de sa théorie du cycle de relation entre migrants et descendants des fondateurs des États-Unis. Il donne cinq arguments qui vont dans ce sens. Le caractère hypothétique est justifié par les travaux de deux des plus proches élèves de Park : E. Franklin Frazier qui montra la difficile entrée des Noirs américains dans une complète assimilation, même lorsqu'ils appartiennent à la petite bourgeoisie, difficulté dont témoigne la rareté des mariages avec des Blancs ; et E.C. Hughes qui dut abandonner son hypothèse de l'assimilation des Canadiens francophones à la culture anglo-saxonne et envisager, comme futur probable du Canada, une culture métissée.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".