MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105902550 · doi:10.3406/geo.2006.21439

Les jardins zoologiques et la ville : Quelle nature pour le Biodôme de Montréal?

2006· article· en· W2105902550 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean Estébanez

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Géographie · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpposition (politics)GeographyEthnologyHumanitiesEnvironmental ethicsSociologyArtPhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Montreal’s Biodôme can be used as a model for the new type of zoos that emerged in the 1980s. They reflect the changing relationships between Western urbanized societies and Nature. Relationships between Men and Animals and the definition of nature are questioned through the analysis of the Biodôme: first, the opposition between Nature and Culture appears to be less and less relevant; then, the city dwellers appear to be only seeking for direct confrontation with an exotic and wild nature, without any of the hazards or tiredness that supposes a real travel. It is a sweetened Nature that is showed and its "otherness” is locked into a specific place in the city, so that Mankind and Nature remain as two opposite concepts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.664
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de GéographieSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207