Small rural parishes of the diocese of rimoouski. Historical and ecclesiological indications at the service of parish restructuring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette thèse apporte des éléments de réponse à la question : " Aujourd'hui, comment vivre en Église dans les petites paroisses rurales? " Trois périodes de l'évolution du réseau paroissial dans le diocèse de Rimouski sont d'abord analysées. Dans les périodes 1867-1891 et 1928-1950, on retrouve deux dynamiques différentes qui ont conduit à la fondation de petites paroisses en milieu rural : la reconnaissance d'une collectivité stable et le soutien à un effort de colonisation en contexte de crise économique. La période 1968-2000 présente plutôt une dynamique de lutte pour la survie des petites paroisses dans un contexte de décroissance. Chaque fois, on poursuit un idéal de société chrétienne par un encadrement paroissial. Trois repères ecclésiologiques sont finalement identifiés en vue d'un remodelage paroissial. Ces trois repères -communion structurée, fraternité-solidarité, espérance-engagement- constituent des révélateurs de vie chrétienne en milieu paroissial et sont des indicateurs pour un nouveau projet pastoral mobilisateur.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".