MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775675906 · doi:10.4000/ethiquepublique.3054

Patrimoine et patrimonialisations au Bénin : entre politiques nationales et réalités communautaires

2017· article· fr· W2775675906 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Opêoluwa Blandine Agbaka

Bibliographic record

VenueÉthique Publique · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Identity and Heritage
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Au Bénin, l’État demeure le principal acteur des politiques et stratégies patrimoniales. Cette prédominance des pouvoirs publics dans les processus de patrimonialisation ne permet pas souvent de considérer réellement les sensibilités patrimoniales des communautés béninoises qui sont fréquemment envoyées à « l’école du patrimoine », pour apprendre ce qu’elles devraient considérer comme leur patrimoine culturel. La focalisation, parfois excessive, des politiques patrimoniales nationales sur les conceptions internationales promues par l’UNESCO et autres organismes internationaux relègue au second plan l’attachement des Béninois à leurs patrimoines, quelles qu’en soient les formes. Si le bâti colonial des villes comme Porto-Novo et Ouidah est largement plébiscité sur le devant de la scène patrimoniale béninoise, l’indifférence des populations est éloquente et suscite de plus en plus de remises en cause au sein des professionnels béninois. Le présent article propose une analyse des écarts entre les politiques patrimoniales au Bénin et les réalités patrimoniales des communautés béninoises.

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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉthique PubliqueSame topicCultural Identity and HeritageFrench-language works237,207