Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plutôt que le rôle de l'espace dans le récit mythique, les géographes ont intérêt à comprendre si et comment la pensée mythique influence les pratiques spatiales. Tout en s'inspirant du programme platonicien, cet essai en modifie en quelque sorte la visée. Il se base en fait sur une conception assez stricte du mythe et avance l'idée que la pensée mythique est un outil crucial pour comprendre la géographie en tant que construction humaine. Cet essai met en lumière l'appauvrissement théorique et méthodologique qui découle de l'éviction du mythe du référentiel explicatif des processus territoriaux par la science géographique « occidentale », en particulier lors du tournant historique qu'a constitué l'institutionnalisation de cette discipline. Il souligne enfin tout l'intérêt que la discipline géographique actuelle aurait à réintroduire la raison mythique dans les interprétations de la territorialité au sein des grands processus qui animent la scène internationale.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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.
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".