à quelle anthropologie de la parenté se réfèrent les historiens ? L’histoire de la parenté spirituelle médiévale à l’épreuve des new kinship studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous vivons à une époque où les techniques de procréation remettent en question ce que nous appelons la parenté biologique. Les manières d’envisager les études sur la parenté se sont modifiées à la mesure de ces nouveaux problèmes, mais ont conduit également à critiquer les définitions de la parenté, et notamment le corrélat qui semblait aller de soi entre parenté et biologie. à travers un retour historiographique sur l’anthropologie historique de la parenté et sur les critiques « postmodernes » formulées contre l’anthropologie de la parenté classique, cet article propose d’employer les notions de parenté pratique et quotidienne pour repenser la parenté spirituelle médiévale. Un retable de Matteo di Pacino exemplifie les représentations médiévales de la parenté spirituelle.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".