MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011188464 · doi:10.7202/1018865ar

Aiamie1, agir au mieux ? Éthique, rituels catholiques et corps social chez les Anicinabek depuis les années 1950

2013· article· fr· W2011188464 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Cultural and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.242 · 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