MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390874226 · doi:10.7202/1107144ar

La résonance d’imaginaires politiques au Comité pour les droits humains en Amérique latine (CDHAL) : des zapatistes aux défenseures du territoire

2023· article· fr· W4390874226 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jean-Sol Goulet-Poulin

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers du CIÉRA · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceMilitantArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’analyse de l’historicité de la vision du monde commune aux militant.es du CDHAL, sous-tendue par certains imaginaires politiques, permet de mieux comprendre la sensibilité et l’ouverture qu’elles et ils ont envers ces savoirs autochtones. C’est via l’analyse de contenu thématique d’un corpus de fonds d’archives personnelles et d’entretiens que les données de la recherche ont été créées. Ainsi, analyser la place que prennent les savoirs autochtones dans les milieux altermondialistes québécois via la résonance du zapatisme au tournant des années 2000 permet de constater l’entrelacement d’imaginaires politiques autochtones et allochtones. En effet, en 1996 le projet politique du CDHAL est transformé par l’implication de militant.es altermondialistes dans l’organisme chez qui les conceptions libertaires et zapatistes des imaginaires politiques de dignité, d’autonomie et d’internationalisme ont résonné dans les années précédentes. Ces imaginaires sous-tendent la pratique de la solidarité directe du CDHAL et s’actualisent à la suite du moment altermondialiste québécois (1994-2001) dans la perspective résolument féministe et décoloniale que ses militant.es mettent de l’avant depuis plusieurs années.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.011
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers du CIÉRASame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207