MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1550315070 · doi:10.7202/039771ar

Éthique pragmatique de la recherche anthropologique : le cas d’une étude de l’obeah à Sainte-Lucie

2010· article· fr· W1550315070 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de recherche sociologique · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Identity, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La constitution des comités d’éthique est assez récente dans le domaine de l’anthropologie et ils soumettent la recherche dans ce domaine à bien des obligations — avant, pendant et après le terrain. Une recherche à Ste-Lucie en 2006, basée sur une compréhension des discours et des rumeurs de sorcellerie et des processus de construction du raisonnement moral associés à l’ obeah , servira ici à montrer comment le respect des règlements ou des principes éthiques, tels que définis au sein des comités mais aussi plus largement dans la discipline anthropologique, non seulement est quasiment impossible, mais en plus limite considérablement une recherche qui porte sur des pratiques « secrètes » ou moralement dévalorisées. Cette communication montrera la nécessité de se départir de cette éthique institutionnalisée, au profit d’une éthique personnelle.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.137
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.083
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.146
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1370.083
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0360.038
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.177
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.283 · 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