MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984707957 · doi:10.7202/015220ar

Relais et chaînes redistributives dans trois systèmes d'échanges cérémoniels mélanésiens

2003· article· fr· W1984707957 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMigration, Identity, and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relais et chaînes redistributives dans trois systèmes d'échanges cérémoniels mélanésiens Dans bon nombre de systèmes d'échanges cérémoniels mélanésiens, les échanges dyadiques sont articulés les uns aux autres par des relais qui se combinent de manière redistributive : après avoir transmis x de X à Y, R transmet y de Y à X. On analyse ici trois systèmes (kula, tee et umalu) composés de chaînes de partenaires plus ou moins longues, où aucun bien ne peut être retourné à son donateur initial et où chaque participant appartient en général à plusieurs chaînes différentes ; sur celles-ci, R doit transmettre à Y un bien de valeur égale à celle du bien qu'il a reçu de X, si ce n'est ce bien lui-même, et la contre-prestation doit passer par les mêmes intermédiaires que la prestation. On examine en conclusion les rapports entre chaînes redistributives, échange généralisé de type discontinu (Lévi-Strauss) et redistribution (Polanyi).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.346 · 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