Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rêves et visions chez les Amérindiens : "produire un ours " De nombreuses sociétés amérindiennes font des distinctions entre de multiples types de rêves, en particulier le rêve " lucide " dans lequel les personnes endormies prennent conscience qu'elles sont en train de rêver mais demeurent en état de rêve et dirigent les actions de leurs âmes, de leurs ombres, de leurs sois ou de leurs doubles. Les peuples autochtones ont également développé des traditions narratives et des prestations musicales complexes, ainsi que des méta-commentaires sophistiqués, à propos des processus et des produits du rêve. Leurs systèmes classificatoires et leurs theories du rêve sont étroitement liés à des conceptions de la personne et à des codes linguistiques spécifiquement locaux. Le récit de rêve, de vision ou de mythe s'accompagne de l'usage marqué de certaines particules linguistiques, qui exigent du narrateur qu'il adopte une attitude particulière envers la valeur de vérité d'une affirmation. Le statut épistémologique du rêve dépend de ces particules, appelées " indicateurs " (evidentials).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".