Comprendre le Québec d’hier et d’aujourd’hui…aujourd’hui comme demain? Quelques réflexions sur le mythe du « printemps érable » et sa portée historique tirées de la lecture de l’ouvrage collectif « Le Québec et ses mutations culturelles. »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
C’est avec grand plaisir que j’ai reçu l’invitation d’É.-Martin Meunier pour participer à cette table ronde autour du lancement de cet ouvrage collectif2, et je tiens à l’en remercier. L’invitation est belle, mais le défi n’en est pas moins de taille! C’est un ouvrage collectif dense que celui-ci, aux contributions riches, variées, convaincantes ou du moins efficaces si ce n’est par leur propos, du moins le sont-elles clairement par leur forme. Je pense en particulier aux contributions de Guillaume Marois3 et du regretté Jean-Claude Racine4 qui se démarquent, parmi d’autres. Dans un tel contexte, comment rendre justice en effet aux 17 chapitres qui composent cet ouvrage collectif, eux-mêmes regroupés en six sections distinctes, et ce, en l’espace de seulement 15 minutes? Défi pour le moins intéressant, sinon impossible à accomplir!
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.002 |
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".