Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’histoire du Québec dans le monde n’est jamais un champ d’étude primordial et occupe une place nécessairement réduite dans l’historiographie. Le plus souvent, les historiens du Québec, malgré l’intérêt de leur travaux, ne parviennent pas à susciter des recherches notables à l’étranger. En dépit de ce constat invariable, des groupes d’historiens du Québec se sont formés en France, en Italie - où existent des dépôts d’archives utilisables - ainsi qu’en Belgique et aux États-Unis. La plupart traitent d’abord des relations internationales, mais peu à peu de jeunes historiens, souvent à la suite d’un séjour sur place, se lancent dans des recherches sur le Québec et abordent des questions sociales et culturelles. Les travaux de ces derniers ne sont pas toujours suffisamment connus au Québec, ce qui contribuerait à les valoriser. D’un côté, une relative fragilité qu’il faut éviter d’aggraver; de l’autre, l’émergence d’un intérêt maintenu qu’il faut entretenir par des bourses et des structures d’échanges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".