Interdisciplinarité et renouvellement de l’anthropologie africaniste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’anthropologie a un atout majeur, sa méthode empirique (l’enquête de terrain prolongée), mais elle est parfois trop prisonnière de son passé exotique et primitiviste, et trop encline à un repli identitaire disciplinaire. C’est le cas en particulier de l’anthropologie africaniste qui doit renouveler profondément ses objets comme ses concepts. Elle doit aussi mieux prendre en considération la contribution de la production de connaissances à des entreprises de réformes, et s’intéresser à des enjeux non seulement intellectuels mais aussi sociaux. Pour ce faire, l’emprunt et le bricolage à partir des autres disciplines constituent une ressource importante. Le domaine de la santé illustre bien ces arguments. La santé publique permet à l’anthropologie de construire de nouveaux thèmes de recherche, et fournit des liens possibles avec l’action. Par contre, la production de concepts innovants à visée d’interprétation empirique implique le recours à d’autres disciplines.
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 | 0.020 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".