Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une écologie de la connaissance est-elle possible ? À la suite de Durkheim, l'anthropologie écologique a largement accepté l'idée que les sociétés humaines appréhendent la nature par l'intermédiaire des représentations individuelles et collectives. On sait que l'objectivité de la connaissance humaine du milieu reposait, pour Durkheim, sur le caractère collectif des représentations du monde sensible. C'est à l'examen de cette conclusion révolutionnaire pour l'époque et à sa reformulation structurale par Claude Lévi-Strauss et, plus récemment, par Philippe Descola qu'est consacré cet article. Pour écrire une histoire critique du rapport nature-culture, tel que conçu jusqu'à présent par les héritiers de Durkheim, nous soutiendrons qu'il faut rendre problématique la distinction centrale établie par Durkheim entre le monde sensible et ses représentations sociales. Mots clés : Crépeau, écologie, représentations collectives, structuralisme, classifications, couleurs, ethnoscience
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".