Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nous proposerons ici quelques réflexions concernant des interrogations épistémologiques qui traversent l’ensemble des recherches de C. Meillassoux, et notamment les problèmes que posent aux anthropologues les connotations idéologiques des termes utilisés. Comment analyser un phénomène tel que la parenté, tout en pratiquant une description scientifique des réalités observées ? Nous tenterons de montrer que cette question est récurrente dans les travaux de cet auteur.Dans une perspective plus générale, notre contribution concerne la tradition orale, et interroge les rapports entre les représentations du temps et la mémoire collective des Inuit. Les récits mythiques, les récits de vie, l’attribution des noms, et les toponymes permettent de saisir la façon dont les Inuit se souviennent de leur passé. Nous proposerons alors de mettre en œuvre la thèse de Meillassoux, selon laquelle leur système social n’est pas fondé sur la transmission du sang, mais renvoie à la notion de collaboration inscrite dans des termes tels que « cousin » et « beau-frère ».
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 | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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.
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".