Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour ne laisser aucune place à lasubtilité ou l’ambiguïté, il semble important depositionner l’orientation de cet ouvrage dès lespremières lignes. Le texte argumentatif qui suitest de nature souverainiste. Il s’emploie àdévelopper un argumentaire construit autourd’une thèse très simple; le Québec, de par sonidentité distincte, a les moyens de pallier à ladéficience du fédéralisme canadien et des’affranchir du statut de province fédérée. Deplus, il est important de préciser que lastructure de cet ouvrage ne répond pas del’approche cartésienne de la thèse, antithèse,synthèse valorisée par les milieux académiques.La raison en est bien simple, la thèse de cetessai naît de la vision québécoise de l’histoirecanadienne, c’est-à-dire que l’état canadien estné d’une entente entre deux nations,francophone et anglophone. Se positionnantcomme tel, la thèse ne cherche pas a débattreou a exposer d’autre vision historique de lafédération canadienne, croyant donc superflude discuter de la vision prédominante dans lecanada anglais qui perçoit la création de lanation canadienne comme un moyen d’unissoncontre le pouvoir colonial britannique [...]
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".