Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le Nord québécois est un milieu géographique complexe et relativement peu connu. L’adoption du Plan Nord (2011) a suscité un renouveau d’intérêt à son égard, malgré la pertinence relative et les aléas du projet. Néanmoins, des géographes québécois s’intéressent au Nord depuis plusieurs décennies. Ces travaux, dont le pionnier est incontestablement Louis-Edmond Hamelin, offrent différentes lectures du Nord québécois ou canadien. Celles-ci se déclinent selon la dimension épistémologique ou selon un angle plus sociopolitique. Nous voulons donc comparer les diverses conceptions du Nord de quatre auteurs reconnus : Louis-Edmond Hamelin, Christian Morissonneau, Jules Dufour et Caroline Desbiens. Ils s’inscrivent dans un continuum temporel sur plus d’un demi-siècle, bien que leurs écrits sur le Nord ne présentent pas de continuité parfaite sur le plan des idées. Le résultat de cette recherche offrira un panorama des écrits de géographes québécois sur un territoire géographiquement important, voire sur une caractéristique, la nordicité, qu’on retrouve à différents degrés sur l’ensemble du territoire québécois.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".