La pluralisation des espaces communautaires francophones en situation minoritaire : défis et opportunités pour l’intégration sociale et culturelle des immigrants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quelle est la nature changeante des espaces communautaires francophones à la lumière des politiques récentes mettant l’accent sur l’immigration francophone ? Nous répondons à cette question en nous basant sur les résultats d’une étude comparative des villes de London et d’Ottawa, en Ontario. Premièrement, nous constatons que le maintien et la vitalité de ces espaces semblent être à risque du fait de la situation de précarité qu’ils affrontent actuellement ; deuxièmement, nous soulignons le pluralisme croissant des espaces communautaires francophones dans ces deux villes ontariennes. De façon générale, nous traitons trois thèmes principaux : le rôle de ces espaces et les opportunités qu’ils peuvent offrir, des enjeux d’invisibilité communautaire et les défis liés au maintien de ces espaces.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".