Bibliographic record
Abstract
S’agissant de traquer le facteur religieux au coeur du social, l’auteur s’est intéressé à l’émergence et au développement des nouvelles disciplines et des nouveaux programmes universitaires que sont la sexologie et la thanatologie. En effet, que se passe-t-il quand la sexualité et la mort, encore fortement codées aux plans symbolique et éthique par la religion et la morale catholiques, deviennent l’objet d’un discours savant et d’une formation professionnelle ? Éros et Thanatos auraient-ils trouvé un nouveau temple et de nouveaux clercs ? L’émergence et le développement de ces disciplines semblent faire partie des transformations des champs religieux et éthique dans la société québécoise, voire des transformations du champ de la manipulation symbolique auquel renvoient ces deux champs. Si l’on peut convenir d’une telle réponse, encore faut-il la soutenir d’une interprétation. Ainsi, les transformations du champ de la manipulation symbolique que manifestent l’émergence et le développement de ces disciplines s’inscrivent tantôt dans la poussée de la sécularisation, tantôt dans ce qui s’en échappe et que nous appelons la post-sécularisation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".