Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir de l’ethnographie d’un groupe de boxeurs qui s’est déroulée à Strasbourg sur quatre années (1999-2002), cet article interroge l’engagement pugilistique comme expérience d’un combat dont les raisons et les effets dépassent le seul cadre du ring. En articulant description des situations d’entraînement et analyse des schèmes biographiques constitutifs des trajectoires de boxeurs, il montre comment ces derniers conçoivent le sens des coups. Un sens que l’étude des logiques sociales du corps à corps ne suffit pas à révéler, tant il est vrai que celui-ci reste marqué par l’expérience des stigmatisations et autres disqualifications vécues par l’ensemble des pugilistes en-dehors du gymnase. Mêlé à la pierre des quartiers populaires et aux héritages de l’immigration, ce rapport de dureté au monde social marque la chair des boxeurs par l’empreinte de ses coups ; des coups auxquels ils répondent à leur manière : celle des poings chargés, au-delà des raisons pratiques, de toutes les raisons symboliques de boxer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".