MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2412086222 · doi:10.7202/1034075ar

Immigrants aux États-Unis, au Canada et au Québec. Un schéma

2015· article· fr· W2412086222 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Denise Helly

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Il existe dans les sociétés modernes deux logiques pour rendre compte de la place et de l’identité des individus, et subséquemment pour penser l’intégration des immigrants. L’une, ethnique, érige en critère de similitude et de rassemblement une culture dite communautaire et historique et, ainsi, distingue, au sein de la population nationale, des sous-ensembles de personnes; l’autre, étatique, définit chaque résident du territoire national selon un critère juridique, soit les droits du citoyen. La première logique tente d’évacuer toute médiation de l’État dans la constitution de l’entité collective, sécrétant la notion de groupes culturels, tandis que la seconde impose cette médiation, créant la catégorie « étrangers ». L’apparition et la force de ces deux logiques relèvent de l’histoire de la formation des États démocratiques, et cette différente historique engendre deux acceptions de la culture dans ses rapports avec le politique. Nous tentons de définir ces acceptions et les voyons à l’oeuvre dans les sociétés américaine et québécoise.

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)0.002
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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.008
Science and technology studies0.0090.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207