MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110465391 · doi:10.7202/1007805ar

Les représentations d’une appartenance culturelle en contexte de migration

2012· article· fr· W2110465391 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Linda Guidroux

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2012
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans son article, Linda Guidroux cherche à comprendre comment on peut se sentir de quelque part et pourquoi revendiquer cette appartenance culturelle en situation de migration. Ces préoccupations l’ont mené à se questionner sur la déterritorialisation de l’appartenance culturelle, puis sa relocalisation en contexte de migration. Pour cela, elle a décidé de prendre pour étude de cas la migration des Bretons au Québec depuis 1950. En premier lieu, elle propose de découvrir à quel groupe ethnique (breton, français, québécois, canadien ou autre) les migrants bretons du Québec rencontrés font référence (ou ont fait référence pour ceux retournés en Bretagne) pour s’identifier en terre d’accueil et laquelle de ces appartenances ils choisissent pour se présenter à « l’Autre ». En second lieu, elle analyse dans quelle mesure les représentations que ces migrants se font de leur groupe ethnique de référence a influencé leur choix d’appartenir à ce groupe et de repérer les liens qu’ils ont maintenus, construits ou rompus avec celui-ci. Enfin, elle identifie si leur expérience migratoire au Québec a modelé leur choix d’appartenance culturelle.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.847

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.022
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.259 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207