L’ethnographie au service du discours cinématographique des prêtres-cinéastes, 1930-1960
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En se penchant sur les films documentaires des prêtres-cinéastes entre 1930 et 1960, cet article montre d’abord que la collecte ethnographique caractérise les oeuvres des sept prêtres à l’étude et contribue à la cohérence de ce mouvement cinématographique. Ensuite, nous avançons que le cinéma permettait à l’ethnographie de jouer un plus grand rôle dans le discours clérical, car désormais traitée de manière ludique et distrayante. En dernière partie, cet article met en relief les liens étroits entre le régionalisme des prêtres-cinéastes et la collecte ethnographique. Alors que l’ethnographie des Canadiens français participe à l’exaltation d’un patriotisme régional, celui des pratiques culturelles autochtones conforte surtout une utopie de la nation canadienne-française.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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".