Le traitement des Formes élémentaires dans les manuels de sociologie : de l’occultation aux rejets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article se propose d’étudier de quelle manière on parle des Formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse dans un corpus d’une vingtaine d’ouvrages d’introduction à la sociologie (nommé « manuels ») qui ont paru en France depuis les années 1960 (et plus spécialement depuis les années 1980). On constate que certains auteurs (un tiers du corpus) de manuels n’en parlent pas du tout. Il s’agit d’étudier ce que qu’en disent les autres, de recenser les nombreuses critiques qui lui sont adressées par le truchement d’auteurs intermédiaires, souvent décédés, non français et ethnologues. Les critiques analysées sont suffisamment abondantes pour qu’on ait pu les classer en cinq catégories : épistémologiques, théoriques, méthodologiques, empiriques et morales.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".