MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3134585639

France / Québec : (se) comparer

2017· preprint· fr· W3134585639 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emilie Biland-curinier, Fabien Desage

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Si loin si proches. Quand il s’agit d’évoquer les relations entre la France et le Québec, cet aphorisme vient immédiatement à l’esprit, tant il semble à propos pour décrire les relations soutenues qu’entretiennent ces deux espaces, pourtant séparés de plus de 6 000 kilomètres. En dépit de cette distance géographique, la province canadienne francophone et l’ancienne puissance coloniale cultivent un air de famille. Le choix du verbe est important ici, dans la mesure où – et c’est un apport central de ce dossier – rien en réalité ne va de soi dans cette proximité, fruit de processus politiques et sociaux de rapprochement qui se sont amplifiés durant les dernières décennies, non sans être concurrencés et relativisés par de nombreuses dynamiques de différenciation. Ce dossier explore quelques conditions de ce rapprochement, et ses incidences dans différents espaces sociaux. Dans chacune de ces sociétés, des forces sociales diverses (gouvernant·e·s, intellectuel·le·s, groupes économiques, médias) ont contribué, pour des motifs variés et parfois non intentionnels, à faire de l’autre un miroir privilégié, façonnant ce que l’article introductif de ce numéro qualifie de « vis-à-vis comparatif ». [Editorial, premier paragraphe]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→