MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2476660020 · doi:10.7202/1033778ar

Attachement utilitaire et refus du jeu ethnique. Le rapport au pays d’accueil dans les récits de vie d’un groupe d’immigrants italo-montréalais

2015· article· fr· W2476660020 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mauro Peressini

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural, Psychoanalytic, and Sociopolitical Reflections
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les récits de vie d’un groupe d’immigrants italiens de Montréal, en tant que révélateurs des identités multiples au moyen desquelles les narrateurs se définissent, servent ici à analyser le traitement réservé au pays d’accueil. Les discours tenus sur les caractéristiques naturelles et spatiales du Canada, sur la société canadienne en général et sur les rapports concrets avec les autochtones montrent que le Canada est jugé positivement ou négativement selon sa capacité de favoriser ou non la réalisation d’un projet migratoire essentiellementfamilialet l’épanouissement d’une vie communautaire à caractèrelocal. Il y a valorisation des identités familiales, de l’identité rattachée à l’appartenance à une communauté de parents et d’amis et de l’identité de « citoyen ». En revanche, les discours expriment une dévalorisation généralisée des identités ethno-nationales. La conclusion suggère de considérer l’attachement utilitaire au pays d’immigration et le refus du jeu ethnique qui se dégagent des discours comme des stratégies liées aux traits socio-professionnels du groupe étudié.

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)0.006
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 score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicCultural, Psychoanalytic, and Sociopolitical ReflectionsFrench-language works237,207