Frontières, visées et spécialisation de la géographie : les habitus disciplinaires dans la Revue canadienne de géographie et les Cahiers de géographie de Québec (1947-1964)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Partant du principe que les revues scientifiques constituent un lieu privilégié de formation des normes disciplinaires, cet article propose d’analyser le rapport à la géographie dans deux de ses revues centrales au Québec. L’étude de textes parus dans la Revue canadienne de géographie et dans les Cahiers de géographie de Québec, entre 1947 et 1964, met en relief certains enjeux disciplinaires, contribuant ainsi à l’écrtiure d’une histoire de l’institutionnalisation de la géographie dans les universités québécoises de langue française. L’analyse permet de circonscrire trois registres de rapport à la discipline, à savoir la géographie conçue comme : 1) un complément de culture et un idéal de synthèse; 2) un corpus de savoirs utiles à la société; 3) une discipline « scientifique », vision révélatrice d’une rupture entre géographes de l’ancienne et de la nouvelle génération.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".