MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899525894 · doi:10.7202/1051327ar

De l’origine d’une collection, Wilfrid Richard et les siens, sculpteurs animaliers

2018· article· fr· W2899525894 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Bernard Genest

Bibliographic record

VenueRabaska Revue d ethnologie de l Amérique française · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 2014, Bernard Genest cédait au Musée de la civilisation du Québec une collection de sculptures animalières provenant pour une bonne part de Wilfrid Richard (1894-1994), l’un des maîtres de l’art populaire au Québec. Dans son article, l’auteur fait un retour sur les circonstances de sa rencontre avec l’artiste et sur ce qui l’a amené à entreprendre sa démarche de collectionnement. Persuadé qu’il était en présence d’artefacts qui allaient échapper au patrimoine québécois, il entama au début des années 1970 un long processus d’enquête. Au fil du temps, il allait réaliser que Wilfrid Richard était le maillon d’une chaîne de transmission d’une tradition s’étalant sur quatre générations. L’auteur dresse un portrait sommaire des membres de la famille qui, à travers une production distinctive mais dont la filiation est évidente, ont contribué à la construction d’un corpus reconnu par la Commission canadienne d’examen des exportations des biens culturels comme d’intérêt exceptionnel et d’importance nationale. Aux yeux du collectionneur, les oeuvres ainsi rassemblées devaient revenir à la population plutôt que d’être dispersées à travers le Québec, le Canada ou les États-Unis.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score0.527

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0190.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRabaska Revue d ethnologie de l Amérique françaiseSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207