MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408520510 · doi:10.7202/1116503ar

« La carte n’est pas le territoire » ou les enjeux et défis de la territorialité et de la cartographie autochtones contemporaines

2025· article· fr· W4408520510 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sylvie Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d’études autochtones · 2025
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’énoncé « La carte n’est pas le territoire » me sert d’assise pour réfléchir d’une part à l’écart et à l’enchevêtrement entre les conceptions et les pratiques autochtones et étatiques du territoire et de la territorialité, et, d’autre part, à l’engagement actuel des peuples autochtones envers les productions cartographiques comme une de leurs stratégies de résistance, de négociation, de dialogue et de coexistence. Je m’appuie, dans une perspective diachronique, sur l’expérience de la Nation Atikamekw Nehirowisiw (Haut-Saint-Maurice, Québec) avec les productions cartographiques, les leurs et celles du gouvernement québécois. Il s’agit aussi de mettre en perspective cette analyse d’un cas singulier avec la littérature, les travaux et les débats sur la cartographie autochtone. Au niveau conceptuel, je me propose de faire dialoguer le concept de territorialité autochtone, celui de « contre-cartographie » autochtone et ce que j’appelle ici les « cartographies enchevêtrées », soit les inscriptions et les « rencontres » sur support cartographique des conceptions, régimes fonciers et modes d’occupation étatiques et autochtones des territoires et des lieux.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.019
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d’études autochtonesSame topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207