« Faire almanach » : perspectives sur l’animation culturelle au Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quel regard portent les animateurs œuvrant au Québec sur les enjeux actuels de leur pratique professionnelle ? Quels défis voient-ils se dessiner pour leur métier dans un avenir rapproché ? À partir d’une enquête auprès de 31 d’entre eux, cette contribution propose d’explorer quelques tendances qui se dessinent déjà. L’analyse présentée synthétise les résultats autour cinq publics cibles et d’autant de problématiques qui leurs sont associés. Ainsi, aux publics de masse, aux aînés, aux personnes en situation d’immigration, aux jeunes et aux animateurs eux-mêmes correspondent la nécessité de renforcer des liens sociaux, de faire advenir une société plus inclusive, de dompter les outils numériques, d’agir de manière plus éco-responsable et de consolider les relations professionnelles. Or, ces exigences appellent des transformations dans les pratiques, les rôles, les compétences et une plus grande reconnaissance des animateurs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".