MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773143064 · doi:10.7202/1041851ar

Réappropriations mutuelles. Ayahuasca et néochamanisme péruvien internationalisé

2017· article· fr· W2773143064 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sébastien Baud

Bibliographic record

VenueDrogues santé et société · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychedelics and Drug Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans cet article, je présente et analyse le paysage chamanique péruvien internationalisé et façonné par ce que j’appelle des « réappropriations chamaniques ». Ces dernières sont le fruit de rencontres entre nouvelles spiritualités européennes, sud et nord-américaines et néochamanismes locaux, entre celles et ceux qui voyagent à la rencontre de leurs chamanes et ces derniers. Ce paysage en devenir est attesté depuis une époque ancienne – je ne me hasarderai pas ici à donner une date –, comme en témoigne la circulation de plantes rituelles, médicinales et psychotropes et des noms qui les désignent. Autrement dit, ce que d’aucuns appellent le « tourisme chamanique » n’est pas à l’origine, mais participe d’un processus diffus. Pour le montrer, j’appuie mon propos sur une description de l’ayahuasca, cette plante psychotrope emblématique de ce paysage, puis celle du chamanisme awajun (famille linguistique jivaro, Pérou), peu familier, comparativement à d’autres, des « festivals chamaniques » et autres rituels « bricolés » organisés en Amérique ou en Europe. Enfin, j’aborde la rencontre et son intelligence, à travers un essai de compréhension de ce qui se joue dans l’expérience psychotrope des « modernes ».

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrogues santé et sociétéSame topicPsychedelics and Drug StudiesFrench-language works237,207