MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018787698

El TNO y la evolución de la comunidad\n\t\t\t\t francófona de Sudbury (Ontario)

2014· article· en· W7018787698 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicContemporary art, education, critique
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWork (physics)Frame (networking)Field (mathematics)Order (exchange)The artsField research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1971 “Le Théâtre du Nouvel Ontario” was\n\t\t\t\t founded in Sudbury (in the Northeast of Ontario)\n\t\t\t\t by a group of university students, willing\n\t\t\t\t to answer the questions “Who are we?” by the\n\t\t\t\t means of the arts and, specially, theatre. Those\n\t\t\t\t pieces of work were based on the everyday life\n\t\t\t\t (they talked about traditions and discrimination,\n\t\t\t\t but also about the possibility of a change for\n\t\t\t\t the better), were addressed to the young and\n\t\t\t\t the working class, and were written in the language\n\t\t\t\t of the region. Later, the authors as well\n\t\t\t\t as the public preferred more universal topics,\n\t\t\t\t and going to the theatre became an artistic experience.\n\t\t\t\t Nowadays, according to sociologists\n\t\t\t\t Laflamme and Mainville (2007), in order to get\n\t\t\t\t to know the people who go to the theatre, it is\n\t\t\t\t necessary to ask them about their likes, opinions\n\t\t\t\t and feelings. This methodology has been\n\t\t\t\t applied as the frame of work for the analysis of\n\t\t\t\t some data collected through field work among\n\t\t\t\t the French-speaking community of Sudbury in\n\t\t\t\t 2006.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicContemporary art, education, critiqueFrench-language works237,207