L’EDI comme instrument d’action publique : l’exemple des organisations culturelles au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restituant une étude conduite en 2020-2021, cet article postule que les dispositifs d’équité, de diversité et d’inclusion (EDI) sont devenus de véritables instruments d’action publique (Halpern et al., 2014). L’étude traite des organisations culturelles, de leurs efforts, de leurs besoins et des défis auxquels elles font face pour intégrer l’EDI. Elle repose sur 65 entrevues semi-structurées avec des artistes et des personnes travaillant dans des organisations culturelles de quatre villes canadiennes. Les résultats mettent en évidence un besoin de ressources additionnelles et des enjeux structurels importants. Malgré les cadres normatifs en vigueur au Canada et les ressources existantes, les résultats montrent que l’inclusion des publics et la promotion de différentes formes d’arts demeurent de véritables enjeux pour approfondir l’EDI dans le champ de la culture.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".