Mondialisation des terrains ou internationalisation des traditions disciplinaires?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ Mondialisation des terrains ou internationalisation des traditions disciplinaires ? L'utopie d'une anthropologie sans frontières En cette période de mondialisation, le rappel de l'histoire de l'anthropologie met en lumière le rôle prégnant des traditions nationales dans le processus de sa construction. La nature des terrains et des rapports entre les anthropologues, aussi bien du Sud que du Nord, et leurs terrains s'est modifiée au cours du dernier demi-siècle. À la mondialisation des terrains correspond la mobilité des chercheurs. Mais le point de vue postmoderniste ne rejoint ces contradictions que de manière livresque et ahistorique. La culture pratique et professionnelle des anthropologues doit être à la fois plurielle et véritablement internationale. Malgré l'évocation du relativisme culturel ou du comospolitisme des traditions disciplinaires, les caractéristiques nationales et ethnocentriques conservent de fait le dessus dans les paradigmes anthropologiques. Évoquant pour terminer le cas à la fois particulier et exemplaire du terrain sud-africain de l'apartheid, l'auteur s'interroge sur la possibilité d'une anthropologie sans frontières qui ne se réduise pas à une utopie. Mots clés : Copans, mondialisation, tradition nationale, terrain, théorie, profession
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".