MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2471550139 · doi:10.7202/1036857ar

Internationalité du marché du livre, le cas du Québec

2016· article· fr· W2471550139 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jacques Michon

Bibliographic record

VenueMémoires du livre · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical and Literary Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abordée pour la première fois dans la diversité de ses manifestations linguistiques et culturelles, l’histoire du livre au Canada tel que conçu dans le grand projet réalisé entre 2000 et 2007 a mis en évidence les facteurs transnationaux qui ont contribué à la façonner. Situé à la croisée de trois grandes zones d’influence politique et culturelle, française, britannique et américaine, le marché canadien du livre est caractérisé par une internationalité dont l’impact sur la production locale a été déterminant. Quinze ans après la publication des actes du colloque de Sherbrooke sur Les mutations du livre et de l’édition dans le monde duxviiiesiècle à l’an 2000 / Worldwide Changes in Book Publishing from the 18th Century to the Year 2000, et moins de dix ans après la publication du dernier volume de l’Histoire du livre et de l’imprimé au Canada (HLIC), la tendance à privilégier la double approche nationale et extranationale s’est confirmée. La perspective centrée sur les facteurs internes et externes ressort clairement des travaux récents de jeunes historiens du livre, notamment au Québec. Signés par plusieurs anciens membres de l’équipe de rédaction de l’HLIC, ces ouvrages ont permis de développer la réflexion sur les dimensions transnationales du marché du livre au Canada.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMémoires du livreSame topicHistorical and Literary StudiesFrench-language works237,207