Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, nous identifions les conditions et contextes qui ont favorisé l’émergence du concept de spiritualité comme trope commun, tant dans le champ sociétal qu’épistémologique. Nous inscrivons d’abord les manifestations actuelles de la spiritualité dans le paradigme néolibéral, et décrivons la variété des profils des sujets spirituels contemporains qui s’y rapportent. À cet égard, l’herméneutique du soi développée par Foucault fournit un cadre propice à la modélisation de la praxis associée à la spiritualité. Nous discutons ensuite ces perspectives à l’aide de nos observations et de la littérature ethnographiques. Cette lecture empirique amène à rapporter les expériences de la spiritualité dans des formes de communalité et à situer son acception chrétienne dans un domaine plus large associé aux esprits et à leurs interactions avec les humains. Ces perspectives alternatives portées sur le sujet, sur les esprits, et sur leurs articulations suggèrent des pistes heuristiques nouvelles qui orientent l’étude du sujet spirituel dans le champ de la guérison.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".