MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766876186 · doi:10.3917/lautr.052.0038

Laisser partir ou retenir les morts ?

2017· article· fr· W2766876186 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueL Autre · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDeath, Funerary Practices, and Mourning
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans le monde moderne, bien que la pensée officielle considère que les morts n’ont d’autre existence que le néant, de nombreuses personnes entretiennent des relations avec leurs proches décédés en se laissant affecter par eux ou encore en posant des actes concrets qui leur sont destinés. A partir d’une définition du deuil comme étant la somme des actes posés par les vivants pour transformer le mort et la relation avec lui (Molinié 2006), nous observons sous l’angle de la transformation de la relation les témoignages de personnes, de chez nous et d’ailleurs, interagissant avec leurs proches décédés. Une question qui préoccupe régulièrement les personnes rencontrées est celle de « laisser partir » le mort ou de le « retenir ». Ces deux dynamiques relationnelles se traduisent par des actes et vécus spécifiques et mènent à des transformations et statuts différents des morts comme des vivants.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.272 · 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