MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077866983 · doi:10.4000/civilisations.216

Fractures sociales et liens solidaires intracommunautaires dans les Andes septentrionales du Pérou

2006· article· fr· W2077866983 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques Malengreau

Bibliographic record

VenueCivilisations · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsÉcole Nationale d'Administration Publique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article précise les lignes de fracture sociale entre une communauté villageoise andine du Nord du Pérou et des groupes segmentaires qui à la fois composent, divisent et débordent celle-ci. Ces divisions sont analysées à travers les remembrements fonciers, la fourniture de services sociaux collectifs ainsi que les entreprises qui reflètent des intérêts à la fois commerciaux et particularistes. Fractures sociales et liens solidaires y forment un subtil équilibre où s’opposent ou se superposent selon les circonstances, voisinages, entreprises particulières et origines communes. La communauté et le territoire autour duquel elle se reproduit et se reconstruit en permanence est l’enjeu d’oppositions entre ceux qui s’identifient à un espace commun à la fois d’ascendance, de résidence et d’action commune, et ceux qui font de leur seule affirmation comme hijos del lugar ou « fils du lieu », le prétexte pour en tirer des bénéfices privatifs d’ordre matériel. En même temps, le développement des liens segmentaires et notamment familiaux, indépendamment du territoire communautaire, rétrécissent les espaces solidaires et renforcent la compétitivité entre eux en favorisant les intérêts mercantiles.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.007
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivilisationsSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207