Construire le rite comme un objet historique : pour un usage pragmatique de l’anthropologie en histoire religieuse du Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le renouveau de l’histoire culturelle, qui concerne évidemment l’histoire religieuse, risque de se faire dans un rejet inconsidéré de certains des principes fondamentaux de l’histoire sociale : la volonté de rejoindre l’ensemble des acteurs historiques, la pratique d’une histoire critique, la fixation des problématiques autour de la question de la nature changeante du lien social. Ainsi, le retour au « texte », voie prometteuse de renouvellement, porte en lui le danger d’une simple actualisation, ou re-légitimation, de ce que le Pouvoir disait faire. Le travail de l’historien de la culture implique donc un certain effort théorique afin d’inventer de nouvelles manières de lier les discours avec les pratiques sociales en histoire. Cela passe, notamment, par une relance du dialogue interdisciplinaire. C’est cette démarche que j’ai suivie à l’occasion d’une recherche portant sur le phénomène du rite religieux dans le Québec des XVIIIe et XIXe siècles en établissant le pont avec une discipline soeur : l’anthropologie.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
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.
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".