MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056195338 · doi:10.7202/1028465ar

Prêcheurs(ses) musulman(e)s et stratégies de communication au Burkina Faso depuis 1990

2015· article· fr· W2056195338 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Muriel Gomez-Perez, Frédérick Madore

Bibliographic record

VenueThéologiques · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Studies and Ethnography
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Depuis le tournant des années 1990, la visibilité accrue de l’islam dans l’espace public au Burkina Faso s’est manifestée entre autres par l’émergence de prêcheurs et prêcheuses de plus en plus médiatisés. La participation active tant des hommes que des femmes invite l’ensemble des membres de la communauté musulmane du pays à faire évoluer les discours religieux pour atteindre des fidèles aux profils diversifiés et tenter de répondre à la concurrence des chrétiens. Il s’agira ici de proposer un regard croisé entre prêcheurs et prêcheuses du Burkina Faso afin de relever les permanences et les ruptures dans leurs stratégies de conversion — à savoir le raffermissement de la foi des croyants et les tentatives de rejoindre de nouveaux profils de fidèles — et leur utilisation des médias. La médiatisation croissante de l’islam a favorisé l’émergence de trois figures de converti à travers lesquelles l’expérience religieuse oscille entre individualisation et individuation. Selon qu’il s’agisse d’un homme ou d’une femme, d’un arabisant ou d’un francisant, d’un jeune ou d’un aîné, différentes logiques se dégagent que ce soit la recherche d’une plus grande légitimité, visibilité ou autonomie dans une perspective individuelle et communautaire.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.180

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThéologiquesSame topicAfrican Studies and EthnographyFrench-language works237,207