Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article retrace l’histoire du Planétarium Dow de Montréal, en mettant l’accent sur la vulgarisation scientifique qui s’y pratique. À son ouverture en 1966, les activités visent d’abord un public adulte et portent surtout sur la conquête spatiale. Le planétarium travaille alors conjointement avec les astronomes amateurs et participe à la fondation de l’Association des planétariums canadiens. Après 1971, le planétarium se tourne graduellement vers les publics scolaires et diversifie ses spectacles. Dans les années 1980, les thèmes des spectacles changent, alors que le planétarium engage des astronomes diplômés. Dans les années 1990, la création du regroupement des Muséums Nature Montréal joue un rôle crucial dans le développement de l’institution, notamment avec la création de la Société des astronomes amateurs du Planétarium de Montréal et la promotion du loisir scientifique destiné aux jeunes. Au tournant du siècle, faisant face à des équipements désuets, le planétarium mise sur la diversification de ses types d’activités et offre de plus en plus d’activités hors de ses murs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".