Le rapport centre-périphérie et les mobilités structurées : les jeunes Franco-Manitobains et Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article explore les relations ambivalentes de jeunes Franco-Manitobains pris entre deux pôles d’attraction, le domicile et le Montréal cosmopolite. Cette ambivalence émerge des tensions entre deux sources de légitimité francophone : Montréal en tant que métropole et capitale culturelle du Canada français, ainsi que ville internationale et cosmopolite attrayante, et le Manitoba en tant que lieu d’origine authentique et centre de la francophonie de l’Ouest, issu d’une histoire de colonialisme de peuplement. Déménager à Montréal met ces tensions au premier plan : on risque d’être perçu comme traître à la cause du développement de la communauté francophone minoritaire et du français au Manitoba, d’une part, et, d’autre part, on ignore si l’on sera accepté comme un francophone légitime par les Québécois francophones. Visibles dans la recherche d’amarrage chez les jeunes Franco-Manitobains, dans leurs allers-retours entre les deux pôles et leurs va-et-vient dans les réseaux sociaux et linguistiques, ces tensions rejoignent des tensions contemporaines plus larges entre le colonialisme de peuplement, l’ethnonationalisme minoritaire et le cosmopolitisme mondialisé.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".