MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626141449 · doi:10.7202/1034984ar

Les Maisons familiales rurales

2016· article· fr· W2626141449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pierre Idiart

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Community Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Créées en 1935, dans le milieu rural français, les MFR ont réinventé une méthode d’éducation populaire très semblable à celle qui a suscité le « Réveil Scandinave » au XIXe siècle. Luttant contre l’exode rural, indépendantes de l’État et de l’Église avec qui elles collaborent, les MFR se veulent autre chose qu’une école. Elles utilisent avec les jeunes, dès l’âge de 14 ans, des méthodes pédagogiques pour adultes, qui préfigurent ce que donneront la « formation permanente » et « l’enseignement programmé ». Le cadre de cette pédagogie est l’Alternance : 18 semaines de classe par an, mais l’essentiel de la formation est continu, hors de l’école. L’outil pédagogique est le Cahier d’exploitation : une monographie de la ferme où il vit et travaille, que le jeune rédige et discute avec son père, ses camarades, ses maîtres, pendant trois ans. L’exercice principal est l’Atelier : très tôt le jeune assume toute la responsabilité d’une culture ou d’un élevage, où il expérimente et innove, jusqu’à s’y procurer l’indépendance économique qui lui permet de préparer son installation de chef d’entreprise agricole. Le concept central de cette pédagogie est la Praxis, qui érige la pratique la plus traditionnelle en source de réflexion théorique et la méthode expérimentale.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.003

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of Community DevelopmentSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207