MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801089867 · doi:10.7202/1044161ar

Les ancêtres au prisme des pommes de terre non domestiquées. Une perspective andine

2018· article· fr· W2801089867 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ingrid J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontières · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les pommes de terre ont une âme dans les Andes. Il y a des « pommes de terre (du) cadavre » (aya papa), des « pommes de terre des mauvais-morts » (papa de losgentiles), lesquelles ont en commun de n’être pas domestiquées. Il y a aussi des pommes de terre déshydratées (chuño) qui sont presque mortes. Que nous enseigne ceci sur la façon dont les morts, pour les populations des communautés andines, participent encore de la vie ? Voici la question qui va guider cet article. Les conceptions sur la vie et la mort sont ancrées dans un ensemble de pratiques qui débordent le monde des humains, dans une logique pratique et productive qui leur donne sens. Selon ces conceptions, la mort est étroitement associée à la fertilité, à la force-vitale qui anime plantes et individus et ne disparaît pas purement et simplement après la mort mais continue à circuler. Il s’agit là d’un point central de la conception des personnes et du monde dans les Andes. Cet article repose sur des références bibliographiques issues tant de l’agronomie que de l’ethnologie et portant sur l’aire andine, qui sont complétées et éclairées par des données portant sur la région de Cusco (Pérou), lesquelles comprennent des données ethnographiques de première main.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.108

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.023
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.284
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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontièresSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207