MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W780170032 · doi:10.71781/8290

Étude comparative de la pensée économique canadienne-française et canadienne-anglaise durant l'entre-deux-guerres

2014· dissertation· fr· W780170032 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christian Belhumeur-Gross

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2014
Typedissertation
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’entre-deux-guerres représente une période charnière dans l’évolution de la pensée économique au Canada. Le contexte économique et social des années 1920-1940 est des plus favorables au foisonnement de nouvelles idées et de nouvelles approches. Face à la crise et à l’urgence d’en sortir, les économistes, les intellectuels et les milieux politiques commencent à se questionner sérieusement sur les dysfonctions du capitalisme et de l’économie de marché. Pénétrée par des courants émergents, dont le keynésianisme et le corporatisme, et en parallèle avec une discipline économique en pleine formation, la pensée économique évolue considérablement durant ces années alors que les économistes s’interrogent sur les orientations des politiques gouvernementales. L’étude des deux grandes revues d’économie-politique, L’Actualité économique et le Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Sciences, ainsi que l’analyse des travaux des principaux économistes de l’époque, incarnés par Harold A. Innis, W. A. Mackintosh, Esdras Minville et Édouard Montpetit, révèlent les nouvelles orientations face aux problèmes qui confronte le Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.012
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 venueOpen MIND→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→