Bibliographic record
Abstract
La question que nous voulons examiner dans cet article soulève un double problème. Tout d’abord, la notion de mondialisation malgré son usage très répandu reste relativement mal définie. Ensuite, la mondialisation est un défi en soi pour l’ethnologie qui, traditionnellement, s’est faite la championne de l’étude du local. Afin d’aborder ce double problème, nous allons dans un premier temps aborder la notion de mondialisation comme un ensemble de processus qui encadre notre réalité. Dans un deuxième temps, nous tenterons de mieux comprendre le défi méthodologique que pose la mondialisation pour l’ethnologie. Pour ce faire, nous retiendrons trois axes qui nous permettront de saisir les courants de ladite mondialisation. L’objectif de cet article vise donc à mettre en évidence les difficultés d’une ethnologie de la mondialisation et les questions qu’elle soulève, car elle veut prendre en compte des mouvements globaux et l’impact des processus de la mondialisation sur différentes localités.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".