Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article interroge la représentation de l’animal dans les scènes de rencontre, une situation fréquente dans les récits de la tradition orale algonquienne enregistrés par les ethnologues au cours du vingtième siècle. L’analyse de ces scènes permet de conclure que les thèmes narratifs, les transactions dans les dialogues, la sphère d’action du personnage animal, ainsi que ses relations avec des personnages appartenant à d’autres espèces sont subordonnés en partie aux impératifs techniques de la composition orale. Deux considérations viennent cependant nuancer cette conclusion : 1) à la différence de ce qu’on retrouve dans la littérature humaniste, la conception algonquienne du monde ne propose pas une opposition constitutive entre l’homme et l’animal ; 2) les transcriptions ethnographiques ne rendent pas compte des multiples canaux de la performance, à travers lesquels la communication corporelle (embodied communication) entre les espèces est représentée.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".