Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il y a aujourd’hui un regain d’intérêt pour le conte oral. Au Québec, en France et récemment en Acadie, les festivals de contes se multiplient. Les participants puisent leur répertoire dans leurs souvenirs personnels, dans les archives ou dans des recueils, mais ils ne font qu’effleurer ce vaste domaine. L’ironie fait que cette redécouverte ait lieu précisément au moment où disparaît la dernière génération des conteurs traditionnels acadiens. Les jeunes conteurs ne peuvent ni voir ni entendre ces maîtres, derniers représentants d’une tradition millénaire. Leur répertoire a cependant été sauvé en grande partie dans les archives, mais à peu près rien de cela n’est connu du public, car les contes publiés sont trop souvent tirés des collections classiques européennes. Devant ce potentiel inattendu, les ethnologues pourront diffuser le conte traditionnel de l’Acadie et du Canada français à condition de se doter des outils appropriés à l’entreprise.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".