Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le travail de l’image et du son agit comme révélateur en termes de relation, de connexion et de transmission culturelle par et au-delà des identités. Les étapes d’archivage et de documentation offrent non seulement un riche potentiel de recherche mais aussi une base perceptive et sensible essentielle à l’atteinte d’une expression visuelle articulée et engagée. La formation en vidéo et cinéma n’est pas une recette ni une simple question de procédés techniques, elle est avant tout un espace relationnel. Filmer engage toute la communauté et est un outil de transmission de savoir et de mémoire comme nous l’expriment les cinéastes autochtones. Cet espace est un entre-lieu saisissant les vues culturelles des participants et ouvrant par la voie de la créativité une pensée visuelle propre aux individus et à leur communauté. Cette créativité se joue autant du côté du formateur que des participants en un continuel processus de participation, de collaboration, de concertation que l’on décrit comme recherche-action par la création.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.003 |
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.
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".