MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346990621 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.2375

Reconstruire des relations : Hydro-Québec et la Nation crie (1994-2015)

2016· article· fr· W2346990621 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Sofiane Baba, Emmanuel Raufflet, John Paul Murdoch, Réal Courcelles

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article porte sur la reconstruction des relations entre Hydro-Québec et la Nation crie de 1994 à 2015. En 1994, le report sine die du projet hydroélectrique de Grande-Baleine par le premier ministre Jacques Parizeau marque à la fois une « victoire » pour les Cris opposés à ce projet et le paroxysme du conflit entre ces derniers et Hydro-Québec. Par contraste, deux décennies plus tard, en 2015, les deux parties s’accordent à décrire comme excellentes et constructives les relations entre la société d’État et la Nation crie.L’intérêt distinctif de cette contribution qui vise à analyser le processus de transition de rapport conflictuel à partenariat réside dans le fait qu’elle a été coécrite par deux des protagonistes, l’un d’Hydro-Québec, l’autre du gouvernement de la Nation crie, et par deux chercheurs, dans le but de favoriser une compréhension commune de ces événements. Cet effort « d’écrire l’histoire à plusieurs mains », au-delà des clivages passés et présents, représente un effort de synthèse qui vise à enrichir notre compréhension des processus et des démarches d’acceptabilité sociale.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.812

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0140.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207