Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il est souvent question, dans les documents gouvernementaux, dans les dossiers juridiques et dans les médias, de « chevauchements » entre les territoires des Premières Nations et particulièrement, au Québec, entre les territoires des Algonquiens vivant au nord du Saint-Laurent : Cris, Naskapis, Innus, Atikamekw, Algonquins. À la lumière de ce qu’en ont dit les observateurs depuis le xviie siècle, cet article explore la notion de frontière, tant entre les territoires des nations algonquiennes qu’entre ceux des bandes et/ou communautés et des familles de ces différentes nations. Ces frontières ont-elles existé? Si oui, de quelle nature étaient-elles et comment s’est construite la notion de « chevauchement » qui perturbe aujourd’hui les relations entre les nations algonquiennes et entre les membres de chacune d’elles ? Ce texte s’inscrit dans la réflexion menée, à l’intérieur du programme « Peuples autochtones et gouvernance », par Étienne Le Roy, Jacques Leroux et Sylvie Vincent sur les représentations d’espace et les droits territoriaux.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".