Ce que pensent les anthropologies françaises... Ou prudence : de quoi parlent-elles, et comment ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
« Ce que pensent les anthropologies françaises... Ou prudence : de quoi parlent-elles , et comment ? » Les démarches anthropologiques construisent des objets fort divers, qu'elles « pensent » et dont elles « parlent » de bien des façons, selon des règles et dans des cadres de référence très dissemblables. En se restreignant ici à la recherche française (même ainsi, il n'est pas d'anthropologie au singulier), on évoque la non-commensurabilité des grands paradigmes - marxisme et structuralisme restent là-dessus exemplaires - et leur actuelle désaffection ; est pointée du même coup la variété des « régimes de connaissance » en usage (Science ou Histoire ?). D'où la difficulté d'envisager une théorie axiomatisable et unitaire du social. Il faut pour clarifier les choses développer les collaborations comme les confrontations transdisciplinaires, tout en élaborant une anthropologie des anthropologies et de leurs programmes de vérité concurrents. Mots clés : Jamard, discours anthropologiques, régime de connaissances, épistémologie, théories.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".