MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2163067354 · doi:10.3917/culc.133.0001

The Economic Contribution of Culture

2013· article· fr· W2163067354 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yves Jauneau

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture chiffres · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEurosCultural heritageCultural economicsTourismValue (mathematics)Cultural tourismCreative industriesThe artsQuarter (Canadian coin)ConventionProduction (economics)Movie theaterBusinessEconomyEconomicsAdvertisingPolitical scienceGeographySociologyArtHumanitiesSocial scienceTourism geographyArt historyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 2011, les branches culturelles totalisent une production de 85 milliards d’euros et une valeur ajoutée de 40 milliards d’euros. La production culturelle se partage entre une partie marchande (69 milliards d’euros), issue de la vente des biens et services culturels des entreprises, et une partie non marchande (16 milliards d’euros), qui correspond, par convention, aux coûts de production des administrations, établissements publics et associations dans le domaine culturel. Le poids économique direct de la culture, mesuré comme le rapport entre la valeur ajoutée des branches culturelles et celle relative à l’ensemble des branches, est de 2,2 % en 2011. Il ne prend pas en compte les retombées économiques indirectes ou induites par la culture (tourisme par exemple). Jusqu’en 2003, le poids économique direct en valeur de la culture a augmenté. Il est en recul depuis 2004, ce qui est principalement à relier au repli de l’activité dans certaines industries culturelles (édition, presse, disque). En 2011, l’audiovisuel (radio, cinéma, télévision, vidéo, disque) concentre un quart de la valeur ajoutée culturelle. Le spectacle vivant et le patrimoine, branches majoritairement non marchandes, concentrent respectivement 18 % et 11 % de la valeur ajoutée. La progression au cours des quinze dernières années de la part en valeur du spectacle vivant est principalement due à l’augmentation des prix dans cette branche. À l’inverse, le livre et la presse ne concentrent plus que 15 % de la valeur ajoutée culturelle en 2011, contre 26 % en 1995. Les autres branches culturelles (agences de publicité, architecture, arts visuels, enseignement culturel) contribuent dans leur ensemble à un tiers de la valeur ajoutée 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture chiffresSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207