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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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; 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".