MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606606075 · doi:10.1017/s000842391600127x

La gouvernance francophone de la<i>Revue canadienne de science politique</i>et la diffusion des connaissances en français, de 1968 à 2015

2017· article· fr· W2606606075 on OpenAlexaffabout
Linda Cardinal, André Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Political Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Science Research and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesFrenchPolitical scienceSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé La Revue canadienne de science politique (RCSP) remplit un rôle de premier plan au sein de la communauté scientifique des politologues canadiens et québécois. Elle est l'un des plus importants lieux pour publier les travaux des chercheurs, identifier leurs préoccupations et témoigner des principales tendances au sein de la discipline. Étant donné son engagement envers la dualité linguistique, l'article étudie la représentation francophone au sein de la RCSP depuis 1968. Qui sont les auteurs qui ont publié leurs travaux en français dans la Revue ? D'où viennent-ils ? Quels sont leurs thèmes et domaines de publication ? Est-ce que le fait que cette gouvernance soit concentrée dans trois universités, soit l'Université Laval, l'Université de Montréal et l'Université d'Ottawa, a une incidence importante sur la représentativité des travaux publiés en français ? Bien que de nature exploratoire, l'article révèle que la question de la représentation pose certains enjeux au volet francophone de la RCSP tant sur le plan de sa gouvernance que de la diffusion des travaux des chercheurs.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0120.016
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.341 · 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.

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Political ScienceSame topicPolitical Science Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207