Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes Acadie's most celebrated organization, the World Acadian Congress, a civil society platform established over 20 years ago as a means of building bridges between Acadians from around the world. Despite the most recent attempt in 2014 to promote Acadie in a manner that would stimulate community building through economic cooperation, I argue that, in scholarship primarily, the congress is (naturally) a product of the history of the New Brunswick Acadian national ideology and that despite an idealistic desire to embrace a movement of cultural change that would see all diasporic Acadians in social agreement, the organization continues to rest on the modernizing ideology in a manner that benefits chiefly the Acadian territorial/hegemonic beacon of New Brunswick. To counter this natural, yet hegemonic, trend, I follow the call of certain Acadian elites by proposing that scholarship in Acadian studies leads the way by diversifying itself to include more expanded representation of la grande Acadie (the full diaspora) so that Acadians and Acadian enthusiasts may better understand their role and options in the new economy and establish educational institutions more firmly within the debate platform of Acadie as a civil society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".