MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168326187 · doi:10.7202/006730ar

L’image ethnographique

2003· article· fr· W2168326187 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueProtée · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article affronte l’ambiguïté de l’image ethnographique en prenant comme base le riche corpus fourni par le timbre-poste colonial français de l’entre-deux-guerres. Le timbre offre un champ privilégié d’analyse dans la mesure où l’appropriation d’une image de la vie authentique indigène active un processus de re-présentation de l’objet – son encadrement dans une forme lisible par le récepteur européen –, analogue au processus de transcription ethnographique, où les éléments de la culture étudiée sont intégrés et enregistrés suivant des schémas étrangers à leur nature. Une analyse du timbre, en dégageant ses fonctions à la fois indiciaires et iconiques, révèle une tendance à se structurer en couches sémiotiques, en une superposition de signes, qui se prêtent à une certaine manipulation idéologique. En plus, la compartimentation de la réalité protéiforme indigène par la forme du timbre devient l’instrument d’une appropriation plus générale. Le timbre-poste se transforme en porte-objet microscopique, dans le cadre duquel des aspects de la vie indigène se profilent comme des spécimens ethnographique ou zoologique. La vie et la culture indigènes sont ainsi soumises à une gamme d’optiques dont tous sont hégémoniques parce que saisis du point de vue de la puissance européenne colonisatrice.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations5
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProtéeSame topicHistorical Studies and Socio-cultural AnalysisFrench-language works237,207