MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037969531 · doi:10.7202/1070157ar

La dynamique des pratiques change-t-elle la manière de penser les relations kanak aux continuités terre-mer et à la nature ?

2020· article· fr· W3037969531 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Catherine Sabinot, Jean-Brice Herrenschmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPacific and Southeast Asian Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dans les tribus de Nouvelle-Calédonie, de nouvelles pratiques socioéconomiques et des négociations en matière de gestion environnementale entre les populations kanak et l’Administration témoignent d’un désir de réappropriation et de reformulation des liens avec la nature et les territoires. La notion de « liens » est en effet centrale dans l’évolution récente du droit environnemental et des dynamiques de protection des territoires marins. La légitimité territoriale revendiquée, en particulier la continuité terre-mer, constitue la projection des représentations et de la manière d’être au monde. Elle participe de l’ordre social et des relations qui lient les humains entre eux, au monde invisible des ancêtres et aux non-humains. L’implication des habitants kanak des littoraux du Grand Sud calédonien dans la gestion d’aires marines protégées et les expérimentations socioéconomiques locales appellent un changement de paradigme en matière de gestion et de conservation de l’environnement : il s’agit avant tout de maintenir un mode de vie, dont la soutenabilité réside dans la capacité des sociétés contemporaines à construire du sens et à entretenir les liens entre les humains et avec le territoire.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.034
Scholarly communication0.0140.012
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.222
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologie et SociétésSame topicPacific and Southeast Asian StudiesFrench-language works237,207