MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297703861 · doi:10.18192/clg-cgl.v2i1.139

Métropoles régionales et invention des politiques culturelles en France 1945-2000

2009· article· fr· W2297703861 on OpenAlex
Françoise Taliano-des Garets

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture and Local Governance · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les métropoles régionales françaises dans la deuxième moitié du XXe siècle constituent de vrais laboratoires dans la mise en oeuvre des politiques culturelles. Six d’entre elles, Bordeaux, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Strasbourg, Toulouse se caractérisent plus particulièrement par l’ancienneté de leur intervention dans le domaine de la culture. Leurs institutions municipales, opéra, orchestre, conservatoire, école des beaux-arts, musées remontent en général au XIXe siècle voire au–delà. En outre, leur rang de capitale régionale garantit des ressources financières suffisantes pour mener à bien une politique culturelle. Il suppose également un rayonnement externe que les villes ont vocation à pérenniser. Cette histoire comparée de politiques culturelles urbaines est une tentative neuve. Elle se propose de brosser en parallèle l’histoire de politiques culturelles locales d’envergure et celle de l’Etat.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.765
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.257 · 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