Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose un retour historiographique sur la formation qu’a reçue Marius Barbeau auprès des évolutionnistes britanniques et des intellectuels français entre 1907 et 1914. Cet épisode biographique semblait rendre plusieurs ethnologues issus de l’école des Archives de folklore de l’Université Laval mal à l’aise, comme si ces derniers peinaient à assumer complètement leur passé disciplinaire. Pour soulever le voile de mystères, l’auteur propose de relire l’enseignement que Barbeau a reçu à Oxford et les liens qu’il a entretenus avec Marcel Mauss grâce notamment aux mémoires de son directeur de thèse, Robert Ranulph Marett, et celles de son collègue Wilson Dallam Wallis. Ce retour, réflexif, a permis à l’auteur de dégager des éléments de compréhension des influences de Barbeau, et par extension de l’école des Archives de folklore, ainsi que de réfléchir à leur projet interprétatif commun, c’est-à-dire réussir à mettre à distance la foi chrétienne pour comprendre le proche.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
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".