Bibliographic record
Abstract
La récente Cambridge Declaration on Conciousness, de juillet 2012, qui affirme que les animaux sont dotés de conscience et de la capacité de comportements intentionnels, relance à nouveau la question : qu’est-ce que l’espèce humaine possède de spécifique ? Cette contribution explore la conception amérindienne de la condition animale en s’attardant à celle des Kaingang du Brésil, et plus particulièrement à leur concept de maîtres des animaux. La relation des humains au monde animal et végétal est pensée et agie par les Kaingang comme s’inscrivant dans une hiérarchie de puissances, plus précisément de confrontation et/ou de mise en commun des forces ou des puissances tant humaines que non-humaines par l’intermédiaire des entités-maîtres. Ce dernier concept est lié à une conception largement répandue dans les Amériques. L’article propose en conclusion une brève analyse comparative de ce concept à partir de quelques cas sud-américains.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".