La création artistique franco-canadienne : comment les artistes franco-canadiens justifient-ils leur engagement dans la création musicale francophone ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are the reasons behind francophone Canadian artists’ choice to make francophone music? That is the question which motivated my field research. In a multicultural country such as Canada, where the largest public is anglophone, wouldn’t it be safer for a francophone artist to focus on the English-speaking market? While working as an Events coordinator for the Arts and Culture department of the Centre Francophone of Toronto, I wondered what could explain their involvement in francophone art. Answering this question would improve our understanding of francophone Canadian communities’ cultures.My focus was to produce a sociological survey using qualitative data. Thus, I conducted semi-directive interviews with a variety of francophone artists from different provinces in Canada. My results showed two distinct profiles among the artists I interviewed - part of them make francophone music because they feel it as a duty or responsibility, while the other part described the francophone market as more accessible for an artist. Then, I tried to understand where this difference of opinion comes from. My results suggested that this stems from the type of francophone community an artist was born and raised in. Francophone artists from francophone minority communities would tend to perceive francophone artistic creation as a duty, while francophone artists coming from a community which does not experience vulnerability tend to become involved in francophone arts because they are easier to produce.This work helps distinguish the characteristics of two distinct francophone cultures in Canada - the Québec francophone culture and the francophone minority communities’ culture.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".