MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7053340754

This paper presents the portrait of Montreal’s cultural social economy. It takes place within a reflection framework about the transformation of cultural policies, which have to take into account the role of citizens and of associations. We base ourselves on data coming from an exhaustive census of the Montreal Region’ social economy, completed with a sample survey. Using a nomenclature of activities developed by the Canada Chair on the social economy and compatible with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), this study showed that more than 600 social economy establishments could be part of the field of culture and communications (60% of which in the stagecraft activities). With regards to the other sectors of the social economy, the cultural sector distinguishes itself by a particular employment structure, a complexity of the financial and organisational set-ups, an important geographical concentration and more personalized governance. Four typical forms of cultural social economy can be established from the data describing these organizations. In conclusion, we discuss the affirmations about substitution or complement between market and non market resources, which command the actual evolution of the cultural policies (towards patronage or gift and voluntary work).

2008· report· fr· W7053340754 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal) · 2008
Typereport
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear reactor physics and engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)Context (archaeology)NousCultural background
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ce rapport présente les résultats d’une veille sur la recherche scientifique en économie sociale au Canada. Nous y avons répertorié divers organismes de recherche qui traitent de l’économie sociale et coopérative. Les critères de sélection tant la scientificité de la production et son \nimportance en volume, nous avons pu répertorier plus de quarante organismes. Toutefois, cette recherche n’est pas exhaustive puisque nous n’avons pas procédé à une enquête systématique de tous les organismes de recherche sur le sujet au Canada. Quatre types d’organismes de \nrecherche y ont été répertoriés: les centres universitaires; les réseaux et associations \nscientifiques; les regroupements et organismes de partenariat; et les organismes \ngouvernementaux. Une section a été ajoutée cette année pour présenter certains réseaux \ninternationaux. Chaque organisme est classé sous forme de fiche qui comprend ses \ncoordonnées, une courte présentation, les thématiques qui y sont traitées, les types de \npublications et les sources de financement. Ce rapport est le troisième de sa série. Le premier a été publié en avril 2005 (Cahier R-2005-03) et le second en avril 2007 (Cahier R-2007-01).

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0050.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉrudit documents and data repository (Érudit Consortium, University of Montreal)→Same topicNuclear reactor physics and engineering→French-language works237,207→