La pluralité des expériences historiques dans le passé du Québec et du Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the Quebec historical community view the writing of a pluralist and plurivocal history of Quebec and Canada? To answer this question, this article presents the results of a qualitative survey of 22 Quebec historians. It entertains three objectives: to establish the limits of the concept of plurality of historical experiences in the past; to identify the potential and challenges that this plurality poses to the writing of history; and to identify proposals for the formulation of synthetic representations of a past that reflect the multiplicity of historical experiences. The results show a historical community that, while sensitive to the issue of diversity, sets certain conditions for the integration of this perspective. Methodological parameters (rigour and access to sources) and epistemological parameters (sense of history and reference paradigms) are stated by participants as support for their critical posture. Two subgroups stand out within the community of Quebec historians. The first sub-group seems attached to the French-Canadian or Quebecois national narrative and to the traditional political framework or a modified version of it. For this subgroup, the ethnocultural diversity and experiences of indigenous people raise more significant concerns. The second sub-group is, on the contrary, inclined to break up national frameworks to better embrace the multiple trajectories of the population that make up Quebec and Canadian societies. It seems more open to interdisciplinary work and the use of alternative sources and methods (e.g. oral history). The debate between the two sub-groups is obviously not over. Its analysis enables a better appreciation of the challenges facing the contemporary writing of the history of Quebec and Canada.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".