Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comment garder tout au long d’un processus de recherche l’être humain qui est le plus souvent absorbé dans des ensembles, fragmenté ou mis entre parenthèses au profit d’autres entités, comme l’action, la relation ou aussi l’expérience ? L’auteur propose alors de considérer l’homme en tant qu’il existe, comme thème d’une anthropologie existentiale. C’est dans cette perspective que ce qu’il nomme phénoménographie insiste sur l’importance du suivi d’un seul individu à la fois pour observer comment il existe, c’est-à-dire comment il continue d’instant en instant. Cela suppose, d’une part, de travailler sur la singularité plutôt que sur les ensembles, sur l’unité empirique plutôt que sur les interactions, sur la passivité plutôt que sur la seule action, et, d’autre part, de réfléchir sur la place des relations dont l’auteur critique l’omniprésence théorique en anthropologie et sur les modes complexes et toujours mitigés de présence des humains.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".