MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1864700114 · doi:10.7202/029724ar

Frontières alimentaires et mets transfrontaliers

2009· article· fr· W1864700114 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sylvie Sanchez

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCulinary Culture and Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Attestée depuis au moins le XVIesiècle à Naples, la pizza a connu au XXesiècle et plus particulièrement après la Seconde Guerre mondiale une diffusion quasi universelle. Met aux racines archaïques devenu étendard de la modernité, la pizza a traversé l’histoire comme les aires géographiques et culturelles. Pourtant, cet atypique comestible transfrontalier ne signe pas l’effacement des frontières : son adoption s’accompagne toujours d’un processus de réappropriation au cours duquel elle est pétrie de traits de culture locale et s’intègre harmonieusement dans un système de règles lui préexistant. Au terme de ce processus de réappropriation auquel la malléabilité inédite de la pizza laisse prise, le mets fait à nouveau frontière pour tout autre groupe que celui qui l’a travaillé et remis en forme. La pizza est un objet culturel qui offre un exemple particulièrement intéressant de la manière dont la diversité se maintient et se renouvelle dans le flux des emprunts, et permet dans le même temps de revisiter les scénarios d’homogénéisation culturelle et culinaire, ou l’effacement des frontières qu’induirait le processus de mondialisation. Le fait est piquant, relevons le, c’est tout justement la pizza qui, plus souvent qu’à son tour, est utilisée pour témoigner de l’érosion des spécificités culturelles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.125
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologie et SociétésSame topicCulinary Culture and TourismFrench-language works237,207