Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’ornithomancie, la divination par l’observation humaine du comportement des oiseaux, est particulièrement élaborée en Asie de Sud-Est et en Océanie. Les autochtones de Taïwan, qui font partie de l’aire culturelle du monde austronésien, regardaient attentivement les oiseaux afin d’anticiper les évènements de l’avenir. Dans les tribus truku et sediq, les chasseurs scrutaient la ligne de vol de l’oiseau ditsisilafin de prédire le succès ou l’échec à la chasse. Mais l’ornithomancie a perdu beaucoup de sa pertinence dans les contextes colonial et contemporain. Les gens ne vivent plus en milieu forestier. De plus, à cause de l’interdiction des activités cynégétiques, les hommes chassent clandestinement pendant la nuit et ne voient plus les oiseaux diurnes. Toutefois, les gens continuent d’en parler et adoptent les oiseaux divinatoires comme symboles nationaux de leurs tribus. Une réflexion sur l’ornithomancie et l’ethnoéthologie formosane ouvre la porte aux discussions sur l’agentivité des oiseaux dans un enchevêtrement de vies sensibles. De surcroît, la divination est en soi un symbole de la tradition vivante et figure donc au coeur du symbolisme des revendications politiques. S’identifiant ausisil, les militants autochtones réclament le recouvrement de leurs territoires traditionnels et d’un certain degré d’autonomie politique.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.003 |
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".