Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se penche sur les enjeux de pouvoir liés aux Congrès mondiaux acadiens (CMA), grands rassemblements quinquennaux tenus depuis 1994. L’objectif de notre étude consiste donc à examiner la question du pouvoir d’agir de la collectivité acadienne en tenant compte de la dimension diasporique de l’Acadie. Pour ce faire, nous développons dans un premier temps une réflexion théorique sur le concept d’habilitation. C’est sous cet angle que nous étudions ensuite les discours entourant une consultation publique sur les CMA menée en 2015 à l’initiative de la Société Nationale de l’Acadie. Il ressort de cet examen une contradiction entre la volonté d’inclure les groupes de la diaspora dans les projets collectifs visant à accroître le pouvoir d’agir de l’Acadie des Maritimes, d’une part, et la faible participation de ces mêmes groupes à la consultation sur les CMA, d’autre part.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".