MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116496761 · doi:10.1177/096746080000700204

Something straight in our landscapes: looking at the ‘Lemieux effect’ in Quebec nationalism

2000· article· en· W2116496761 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Caroline Desbiens

Bibliographic record

VenueEcumene · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalismDeclaration of independenceDeclarationContext (archaeology)SovereigntyTerritorialityPoliticsReferendumSociologyColonialismLawPolitical scienceHistoryArchaeologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The production of the painter Jean Paul Lemieux is examined in the context of Quebec nationalism and its quest to define a Québécois territoriality. Prior to the independence referendum of 1995, the separatist Parti Québécois produced a ‘Declaration of sovereignty’ which was circulated throughout the province both in a text and video format. Focusing on territory rather than ethnicity, the language of the declaration sought to move away from francophone cultural politics to build a more inclusive platform for the nation. This movement toward a territorial nationalism was disrupted by the landscape imagery of the video, which was released simultaneously with the text. Composed almost exclusively of long, static, horizontal shots, the video of the declaration conveys the territory of Quebec as an empty space devoid of people and history. Looking at Jean Paul Lemieux’s use of a similar - yet differently coded - visual language in his own landscapes, I explore the complex process of collective authorship and response that enables the imaging of communities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0220.019
Scholarly communication0.0090.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcumeneSame topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207