Bibliographic record
Abstract
René Dionne, pionnier des études littéraires franco-ontariennes à l’Université d’Ottawa, se penche sur un texte fondateur de l’identité franco-ontarienne : les actes du Congrès d’éducation des Canadiens-Français d’Ontario tenu à Ottawa en 1910. Par le compte rendu fidèle et détaillé qu’il en donne, il réaffirme le long passé littéraire franco-ontarien, dont la prise de parole actuelle n’est qu’un épisode, puisqu’il a dénombré plus de deux cents oeuvres écrites par vingt-quatre écrivains outaouais qui prirent individuellement la parole entre 1865 et 1909. Puis il compare ce congrès aux grandes conventions nationales (la franco-américaine, les québécoises et les acadiennes) pour mieux marquer l’originalité du congrès franco-ontarien qui, bien que tardif, fut, observe l’auteur, démocratique, provincial, national, loyal, optimiste et littéraire. Devant les conflits politiques et religieux qui menaçaient de dégénérer, l’heure était à la vigilance et à la cohésion; la prise de parole de 1910 se devait d’être collective.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".