L'animation culturelle au cœur d’enjeux organisationnels, identitaires et citoyens: synthèse des conférences prononcées en ateliers en ateliers lors du 4e colloque international sur l’animation culturelle, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In spite of a variety of practices and methods used, the common goal to all sociocultural community developers is to facilitate changes towards a better collective living. Their role mainly consists in stimulating a community by creating links between various cultural actors, citizens and the political world. Their actions help citizens to develop their own abilities in a way that they become actors of change in their community. Sociocultural community development can particularly enhance the impact of social groups by setting up projects, making them participate actively into the construction of society. No matter with whom he intervenes, the sociocultural community developer needs a deep knowledge of cultural and territorial specificities. Therefore, it is essential that a practical experience complements theoretical bases. Furthermore, the sociocultural community developer must be imaginative because creativity is his modus operandi. Sociocultural community development is a practice that uses innovative methods, which develops individual or collective creativity. In this sense, it can be seen as the capacity to create and innovate together.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.001 |
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.
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".