MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783792087 · doi:10.7202/1042828ar

Une communauté métisse francophone en Ontario : lubie ou réalité?

2017· article· fr· W2783792087 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Robert A. Papen

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue du Nouvel-Ontario · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrenchPolitical scienceArtHumanities

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L'article 35(2) de la Loi constitutionnelle du Canada reconnaît trois peuples autochtones : les Indiens d'Amérique du Nord (les Premières Nations), les Inuits et les Métis.Par contre, l'article 35(2) ne définit pas qui est, à proprement parler, Métis, alors que de nombreuses lois définissent assez clairement qui peut être considéré membre des Premières Nations (Loi sur les Indiens de 1867) ou Inuit (Renvoi sur les Eskimos de la Cour Suprême de 1939).Comme les gouvernements, tant fédéral que provinciaux, ont laissé aux diverses cours légales la tâche d'élaborer une éventuelle définition, ceci a fait en sorte que, depuis plus de trente ans, toute la question de qui peut se prévaloir du statut de Métis a été judiciarisée à outrance.Pour compliquer davantage la situation, il existe également au Canada plusieurs milliers d'« Indiens noninscrits », c'est-à-dire des Autochtones non reconnus par la Loi sur les Indiens, des gens qui vivent hors réserve ou, encore, des individus qui, comme les Métis, sont d'ascendance mixte, mais qui ne se reconnaissent pas comme Métis 1 . 1 Cet article fait suite à une communication conjointe prononcée au Colloque Quatre siècles de présence française en Ontario organisé par 54 8

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0200.009
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue du Nouvel-OntarioSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207