Devenir entrepreneur culturel en situation linguistique minoritaire : une perspective de la pratique1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une conceptualisation alternative de l’entrepreneuriat culturel. Partant d’une étude qualitative par entretiens semi-dirigés menée dans l’industrie musicale de minorités linguistiques, il offre un modèle inscrit dans la perspective de la pratique, qui tient compte de la relation mutuellement constitutive entre le contexte et les pratiques entrepreneuriales. Ce modèle émerge des histoires de 35 entrepreneurs musicaux. Il invite à observer les pratiques telles qu’elles répondent aux tensions induites par un contexte social, entre la création musicale et la subsistance, par exemple, et telles qu’elles transforment ce contexte. Il a conduit à identifier 14 pratiques qui permettent aux entrepreneurs d’assurer la viabilité de la création et de la production de musique vocale dans leur langue. En révélant la logique relationnelle qui sous-tend l’émergence de ces pratiques, l’article rejoint les efforts de théorisation de l’entrepreneuriat culturel. Il élargit et diversifie aussi nos connaissances de cet entrepreneuriat en dévoilant des pratiques informelles déployées dans des contextes sociaux marginaux. Comprendre ces pratiques peut s’avérer utile à tout organisme ou toute personne en position de soutenir les entrepreneurs culturels de ces contextes.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".