Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’histoire de l’Afrique du Nord ancienne a été marquée à la fois par le passage et l'établissement de nombreux peuples porteurs de cultures diverses. Parmi eux, les Libyens, les Carthaginois, les Grecs, les Romains, qui concernent principalement l’objet de notre étude. De ces rencontres est souvent né un fait original : le métissage. Celui,ci a laissé une multitude de traces encore visibles sur le sol et dans la mémoire du Maghreb. A partir de ce constat, une étude historique du phénomène des métissages peut,elle être envisagée à propos de l’Afrique du Nord ancienne ? Comment ont été pensées, à travers l’historiographie contemporaine, l’analyse des sources anciennes et l’analyse proposée par les sciences sociales, les processus de mélange et d’interpénétration ? Le concept contemporain de métissage culturel peut,il être fiable pour penser les échanges humains et culturels en Afrique du Nord ancienne ?
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".