Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lucien Levy-Bruhl affirmait que les croyances magiques reposaient sur une pensee non logique. Il a ete montre, depuis, qu'il n'en est rien. E. E. Evans-Pritchard a montre avec ses travaux sur les Azande du Soudan qu'il fallait separer le contenu des croyances collectives des operations mentales que l'individu met en œuvre lorsqu'il pense et agit. Pour C. Levi-Strauss, science et magie ne different pas par le genre d'operation mentale qu'elles supposent mais par le type de phenomene auquel on les applique. R. Horton, quant a lui, distingue un savoir « primaire » a causalites simples, servant aux mythes comme aux activites quotidiennes, et un savoir « secondaire », plus systematique et faisant appel le plus souvent a des causes cachees : c'est le domaine des savoirs traditionnels (de l'ordre de la magie) et des savoirs rationnels (science). Savoirs primaires et secondaires sont universellement partages et le passage du magique au scientifique est graduel. La notion de « mentalite primitive » jadis developpee par L. Levy-Bruhl est ainsi a mettre au compte des erreurs scientifiques, ce que reconnut Levy-Bruhl lui-meme
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".