MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750701709 · doi:10.3917/ag.716.0387

Territoires des humains et territoires des animaux : éléments de réflexions pour une géographie animale

2017· article· fr· W2750701709 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Bortolamiol, Richard Raymond, Laurent Simon

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Géographie · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La géographie, en abordant conjointement les espèces et leurs milieux, représente une passerelle féconde entre les sciences humaines et sociales et les sciences de la nature pour traiter du partage de territoire entre humains et non-humains, dont l’Animal est un représentant au caractère heuristique particulièrement marqué. Pour saisir les conditions du partage de territoire entre l'Homme et l'Animal, il faut comprendre le(s) territoire(s) de chacun, leurs fonctionnements, leurs interactions, leurs dynamiques, leurs adaptations respectives ainsi que leurs conjugaisons à la fois spatiales et culturelles. Cela, parce que le territoire des uns (des hommes) crée le territoire des autres (des animaux) et réciproquement. En France, des initiatives récentes ont fait émerger une géographie « humanimale » très influencée par une approche culturaliste. Ce numéro des Annales de Géographie se veut complémentaire de cette approche, en abordant la question à l’interface entre écologie et géographie. Nous retraçons la place de l’Animal en géographie afin de mieux comprendre comment il peut être modèle de nos rapports à l’environnement, surtout dans un contexte ou les territoires de rencontre entre humains et animaux se multiplient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.035
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.089
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de GéographieSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207