L’anthropologie à l’épreuve de la décolonisation de la recherche dans les études autochtones
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de cet article est d’analyser à la fois l’importance du terrain dans la production du savoir anthropologique et la place des anthropologues dans un contexte de décolonisation de la recherche. L’auteur s’attarde sur le travail de terrain et sur la pratique ethnographique comme processus dynamique mettant en jeu des concepts tels que ceux de créativité, d’improvisation, d’implication et de réflexivité, particulièrement importants lorsqu’il s’agit de s’intéresser aux thèmes très sensibles de la spiritualité et de la guérison chez les Premières Nations du Québec. À partir d’une réflexion détachée sur une expérience de terrain avec les Atikamekw (Centre-du-Québec) marquée par des situations de contestation, l’auteur oriente ses réflexions autour de différentes questions : qu’est-ce qu’un terrain anthropologique aujourd’hui? Comment se positionner en tant que chercheur dans le contexte des études autochtones, contexte marqué par une contestation des méthodes de recherche et par la multiplication des protocoles de recherche?
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.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | MetaresearchScience and technology studies Domain: Methods · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: yes · About a Canadian topic: yes | Qualitative | high |
| grok | MetaresearchScience and technology studies Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | high |
| opus | MetaresearchScience and technology studies Domain: Methods · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes | Theoretical or conceptual | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it