MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019307977 · doi:10.7202/602466ar

Rites funèbres et sciences humaines : synthèse et hypothèses

2009· article· fr· W2019307977 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Luc Bussières

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles perspectives en sciences sociales · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Cultural and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Hearst
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les rites funèbres sont des rites de passage vieux de 100 millénaires. Ils ont différentes fonctions sociales, dont celle de se placer entre la mort et nous, entre la mort et la culture. Plusieurs auteurs de diverses sciences humaines ont écrit à propos des modifications récentes et profondes du monde de la ritualité funéraire en Occident, soit pour parler de déritualisation, soit pour parler d’invention de « nouveaux rituels ». Nous proposons ici une synthèse des savoirs sur la place des rites funèbres fondée par l’observation des sociétés de la tradition et de la modernité, de même qu’une série d’hypothèses, à vérifier empiriquement, en contexte de postmodernité.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.027
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles perspectives en sciences socialesSame topicDiverse Cultural and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207