Entre désécularisation et resacralisation: Bouddhistes laïcs, temples et organisations philanthropiques en Chine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteur se penche sur le renouveau de la philanthropie bouddhiste en République Populaire de Chine (RPC) durant la dernière décennie, dans le but d’aborder la problématique plus vaste de l’utilité sociale de la religion aux yeux des autorités politiques et de constater dans quelle mesure les récents débats relatifs à la théorie de la sécularisation peuvent être pertinents vis-à-vis de la réalité chinoise. Un contexte de changements considérables survenus au niveau des conditions politiques, économiques et sociales, caractérisé par un désengagement de l’État dans la prestation de plusieurs services sociaux, révèle l’émergence de la philanthropie bouddhiste. L’auteur décrit quelques organisations qui offrent une assistance aux plus démunis, voire certains services relatifs aux soins de santé et à l’éducation. Cet essor de la philanthropie bouddhiste, cependant, ne peut être interprété comme annonciateur d’un processus de “resacralisation” en Chine, puisque le Parti-État communiste poursuit une politique de sécularisation manifeste.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".