Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article traite de l’héritage de Mauss à la sociologie historique et comparée du don par le biais d’une comparison entre son célèbre « Essai sur le don », avec l’approche de Paul Veyne dans son étude du don évergétique dans l’espace du monde gréco-romain, Le pain et le cirque. Alors que Mauss met l’accent sur les caractéristiques fondamentalement semblables et universelles du don au travers des périodes historiques et des cultures, Veyne au contraire insiste sur les différences, distinctions et discontinuitées. De fait, la relation de Veyne à Mauss s’avère ambigüe, et même restant dans sa lignée sous certains aspects. Un début de position d’inspiration wéberienne est suggéré, qui sans nier les similitudes et continuités possibles, s’offrirait aussi d’approcher la diversité du don comme une variable empirique et de la resituer dans une analyse pluridimensionnelle de ses contextes socioculturels et historiques.
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 | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".