MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1495811303 · doi:10.7202/1017905ar

Cuisiner en bordure de la piste

2013· article· fr· W1495811303 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Robert Jarvenpa

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le sillage des récents changements politico-économiques dans le nord du Canada, des équipes mobiles de chasseurs-trappeurs et pêcheurs chipewyans (Dene) subissent de nos jours de longues périodes d’isolement, loin des villages où vivent et travaillent les autres membres de leurs familles. Dans ce contexte, les hommes chipewyans sont confrontés à un dilemme structurel. Ils doivent choisir entre reproduire, abandonner ou modifier les savoir-faire hautement spécialisés du traitement et de la transformation de la nourriture qui étaient habituellement réalisés par les femmes, dans les campements familiaux saisonniers et nomades des années précédentes. L’analyse se concentre sur la préparation des repas et les pratiques de dîner dans les camps forestiers exclusivement masculins des dernières années, et sur la manière dont ces comportements reflètent de pénibles changements dans les relations entre genres. Paradoxalement, tandis que les hommes ont gardé de nombreux ingrédients historiques et familiers dans leur régime alimentaire, l’absence des savoir-faire des femmes dans la préparation de ces aliments confère à la cuisine contemporaine des hommes une place potentiellement ambiguë : une nourriture de la forêt, ou de la piste, qui n’est plus pleinement chipewyane.

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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.460
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.612
Teacher spread0.476 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologie et Sociétés→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→