MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161111881

Les associations jumelles France-Québec et Québec-France : des aiguillons pour les échanges franco-québécois ?

2011· article· fr· W3161111881 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gwénael Lamarque

Bibliographic record

VenuePersée (Ministère de lEnseignement supérieur et de la Recherche) · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesEthnologySociologyArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les relations entre la France et le Québec ne prennent leur configuration actuelle qu’au cours des années 1960, sous la double impulsion de Charles de Gaulle et de Jean Lesage. Parmi les nombreuses facettes de cette relation privilégiée, deux associations jumelles occupent une place stratégique : l’association France-Québec (AFQ) fondée en 1968 à Paris et l’association Québec-France (AQF) basée depuis 1971 dans la Belle Province. Bénéficiant d’emblée d’un financement croisé et d’un soutien logistique des deux États, ces associations jumelles constituent « un formidable outil de rapprochement entre Québécois et Français » pour reprendre les termes mêmes de Claude Lizé, président de l’AQF en exercice jusqu’en juin 2008. Cette communication met donc en lumière l’ensemble de leurs activités et de leurs missions, mais aussi les spécificités de leur fonctionnement et de leurs relations. Tout ceci nous permettant d’analyser et d’évaluer leur pertinence dans les relations francoquébécoises et leur véritable rôle dans le transfert et les échanges humains, culturels, scientifiques et économiques entre les deux rives de l’Atlantique.

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)0.002
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0170.008
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.231 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersée (Ministère de lEnseignement supérieur et de la Recherche)Same topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207