Aiamie1, agir au mieux ? Éthique, rituels catholiques et corps social chez les Anicinabek depuis les années 1950
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse la performance de rituels catholiques communautaires, comprenant des processions et des bénédictions, chez les Anicinabek (Algonquins). Il avance que leur étude donne à voir, dans le temps, l’éthique anicinabe. En effet, la période retenue, entre les années 1950 et 2000, correspond à des changements sociaux qui ont bouleversé l’ordre sociocosmique anicinabe. En portant attention à leur déroulement, à ce qu’ils mettent en scène du corps social, des relations avec le clergé et avec le surnaturel, nous postulons que ces rituels révèlent tant les transformations de l’imaginaire social et cosmologique anicinabe qu’un système de pensée pragmatique permettant de prendre les décisions pour se comporter, être et agir au mieux. Enfin, dans le contexte actuel où le catholicisme est en nette régression, nous examinons les nouveaux rites collectifs pour constater que ceux qui promeuvent les « bonnes manières de faire » tiennent essentiellement du domaine politique, terrain où se négocie maintenant la moralité commune.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".