Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente les résultats d’une enquête empirique sur le phénomène de la prévoyance funéraire en Occident. Comment le fait que des personnes, qui, de leur vivant, deviennent des clientes des entreprises funéraires peut-il changer potentiellement le cours de l’histoire de la ritualité funéraire à venir? À partir de plus de 1 500 contrats d’arrangements funéraires préalables non encore exécutés auxquels il a pu être possible d’avoir accès auprès de six entreprises funéraires de Nord-Est ontarien (Canada), nous examinons qui sont les clients et les clientes de ces entreprises pour ensuite distinguer les huit options funéraires préétablies qui s’offrent à cette clientèle. Nous observons ensuite les principales tendances rituelles qui se dégagent de ces choix, de même que ce qui les fait varier. Nous mettons ensuite ces résultats en parallèle avec des questions soulevées dans une recherche préalable, questions qui engagent la thanatologie.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".