Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article aborde l'analyse de la communauté ethnique en mettant l'accent sur ses dimensions politiques, sans pour cela ignorer les autres dimensions. La communauté ethnique est considérée comme communauté politique (polity) sans État, ce qui amène à se demander comment elle se gouverne, de quelle façon elle gère ses affaires publiques. Quatre phénomènes se rapportant à la capacité d'effectuer des choix et de réaliser des projets collectifs sont considérés : la définition de ses frontières, les formes de gouvernement et leur fonctionnement, la gestion des conflits à l'intérieur du groupe, et la mobilisation de la participation que toute action collective exige. La façon dont le groupe est gouverné est influencée par le fait qu'il est minoritaire, que l'appartenance à la communauté est volontaire, que celle-ci est hétérogène et donc sujette à des divisions internes. L'analyse est limitée au cas des groupes formés par des immigrants et leurs descendants.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".