MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2028076837 · doi:10.7202/037908ar

Un don sans retour. Interrogations à travers les cultures

2009· article· fr· W2028076837 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Gilles Bibeau

Bibliographic record

VenueSociologie et sociétés · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans ce texte qui fait un large appel aux notions développées par Georges Bataille dans La Part maudite, l’auteur se propose de dégager une théorie générale de l’échange sur la base d’une étude comparative de quatre grands régimes de vie sociale qu’il nomme : « société du lignage », « société du territoire », « société de l’individu » et « société de l’objet ». Il montre que ces quatre types de société apportent des réponses originales aux problèmes que posent l’appropriation des objets, le rapport à l’origine et au sang, les liens aux ancêtres morts et au passé, à la terre commune, à la tribu et à la nation, au pouvoir des chefs et des rois, aux esprits et aux dieux. Il esquisse les conditions historiques d’émergence des formations idéologiques dans lesquelles s’ancrent les logiques sociales et identitaires pour chacun des modèles de société et indique comment de vastes réseaux réticulés relient, à travers dons et contre-dons, les vivants, les morts, les gens du dedans du groupe et les étrangers du dehors, les ancêtres et les dieux. Il situe son approche au sein d’une réflexion psycho-socio-ethnologique qu’il considère être proche de la sociologie clinique pratiquée, tout au long de sa carrière, par le professeur Robert Sévigny.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.017
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.003

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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.260 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociologie et sociétés→Same topicPsychoanalysis and Psychopathology Research→French-language works237,207→