Vivre ensemble : le rôle du dialogue dans l’harmonisation des relations interculturelles au Québec [note de lecture] : Tremblay, M., Frozzini, J., Agbobli, C, White, B. W. et Martin, N. (dir.) (2024). Dialogue citoyen pour l’harmonisation des relations interculturelles. Presses de l’Université de Montréal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet ouvrage s’inscrit dans la continuité des travaux sur l’interculturalisme au Québec et se distingue des travaux déjà publiés par son accent sur le dialogue citoyen et la délibération démocratique. Cela offre une perspective plus riche et nuancée que les approches centrées uniquement sur les accommodements raisonnables, comme dans le Rapport Bouchard-Taylor, qui était le résultat d’une commission de consultations publiques. Plutôt que de considérer l’interculturalisme uniquement comme un concept, les auteurs insistent sur sa dimension pratique, ancrée dans la réalité quotidienne, où la création d’espaces de dialogue ouverts permet de désamorcer les tensions interculturelles et de favoriser une coexistence harmonieuse.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".