Éthique pragmatique de la recherche anthropologique : le cas d’une étude de l’obeah à Sainte-Lucie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.027 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".