Bibliographic record
Abstract
La pratique de l’exogamie langagière est complexe, de sorte que la tentation est grande de rejeter le concept du revers de la main, sous prétexte qu’il ne simplifie pas suffisamment les cas pour justifier son emploi. En effet, il y a autant de parallèles que de différences dans la pratique de l’exogamie langagière en Amazonie et au Canada. Pourtant, la comparaison souligne la valeur anthropologique du concept, et ce tout particulièrement pour les comportements qui, de prime abord, défient la logique descriptive. Ainsi, je propose que les individus doivent souvent répudier leur langue à court et moyen termes pour en assurer la préservation à long terme, car parfois la transmission d’une langue d’une génération à la suivante repose sur des mécanismes en apparence contradictoires. L’analyse des systèmes d’exogamie langagière pose de nombreux défis, mais soulève des questions importantes à propos des dynamiques culturelles qui les sous-tendent. En bout de ligne, cela permet d’expliquer la persistance des langues et des communautés qui les utilisent. Ma démarche fait contrepoids au discours sur la disparition imminente de nombreuses langues qui prédomine encore de nos jours en anthropologie et en linguistique.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".