MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091458661 · doi:10.7202/301160ar

Mouvement social et question nationale : un instrument de réflexion pour les membres de Au Bas de l’Échelle

2008· article· fr· W2091458661 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jacques Boucher

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles pratiques sociales · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)Université du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article reprend un texte qui a servi d'amorce de réflexion sur la question nationale à une organisation populaire de défense des travailleuses et des travailleurs non syndiqués, Au Bas de l'Échelle (ABE). On y situe d'abord le groupe dans l'ensemble des mouvements sociaux québécois en transformation et en développement depuis les trente dernières années pour y identifier leurs tendances actuelles. Ensuite, on établit une distinction entre, d'une part, la question constitutionnelle et sa portée politique partisane et, d'autre part, la question nationale et les divers types de nationalisme qui ont eu cours dans notre histoire. Cette opération permet de voir plus spécifiquement en quoi le débat constitutionnel actuel touche les salariés, plus particulièrement les clientèles d'ABE. Enfin, elle nous conduit à ouvrir le questionnement sur le projet social du Québec de demain, lequel se situe au plan de la question nationale qui demeure plus large et englobante socialement que le débat constitutionnel. La conclusion fait le point sur l'utilisation de ce texte par ABE et lance quelques hypothèses sur ses hésitations à s'impliquer dans le débat constitutionnel.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0150.044
Scholarly communication0.0110.009
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles pratiques socialesSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207