MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207522741 · doi:10.7202/1082159ar

L’américanité, ou la destruction tranquille du patrimoine

2021· article· fr· W3207522741 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Félix Mathieu, Catherine Charron

Bibliographic record

VenueEthnologies · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le patrimoine est en abîme. Il souffre d’un « mal » profond, difficile à cerner. Comment expliquer ce phénomène en le situant plus précisément dans le sillage de la trajectoire sociopolitique du Québec ? Afin de répondre à ce questionnement des plus préoccupants, cet article propose une (hypo)thèse forte qui ne pourra toutefois pas être démontrée au sens premier du terme : c’est pourquoi nous le qualifions d’essai de théorisation. Son objectif consiste à soulever une piste de réponse qui nous paraît féconde, et que nous espérons ensuite voir débattue par la communauté tant épistémique que praticienne. Cette thèse s’articule ainsi : le « mal patrimonial », au Québec, s’explique principalement par la prégnance de l’américanité – comme pensée forte – pour imaginer l’être, le passé et le devenir de la société québécoise. Ce faisant, la nation québécoise en est venue à s’imaginer par l’unique prisme d’une radicale modernité, rejetant par principe toute intentionnalité collective particulière. C’est parce qu’elle associe plus ou moins (in)consciemment le patrimoine aux traditions, puis le traditionalisme aux sociétés d’Ancien régime, que l’américanité est à l’origine de l’abîme du patrimoine et de l’acte de patrimonialisation.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthnologiesSame topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207