L’art et la violence : quels frayages ? Réflexions inspirées d’un projet pilote en prévention de la radicalisation violente chez les jeunes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La montée de diverses formes de radicalisation violente interpelle à la fois les champs politique et psychosocial. Différents programmes de prévention voient le jour, lesquels s’inspirent notamment des facteurs de risque et de protection face à la radicalisation violente que la littérature sur le sujet identifie. Cet article se penche sur ces facteurs pour ensuite interroger l’éventuelle pertinence d’approches centrées sur l’art dans la prévention de la radicalisation violente. Pour ce faire, les questions soulevées par un projet pilote mené auprès de jeunes attirés par la radicalisation violente et misant sur leur engagement dans des activités artistiques servent d’amorce à la réflexion. Celle-ci mettra en lumière certains enjeux entourant le recours à l’art comme voie d’expression alternative à la violence, en s’attardant notamment aux conditions dans lesquelles ce recours peut être signifiant.
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 | 0.030 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".