Présence et expérience du rap en public : banalité, trouble et disqualification morale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Esquisser quelques pas de danse en étant embarqué dans la musique écoutée en solo, diffuser du rap dans le métro avec la fonction haut-parleur de son téléphone portable, faire vrombir les basses d’un titre dirty south au volant d’une voiture toutes fenêtres ouvertes, ou encore scander le refrain d’un egotrip un casque sur les oreilles, composent des situations devenues courantes, mais suscitent rarement l’indifférence. Cet article propose de s’intéresser à cette présence relativement ordinaire du rap dans notre vie quotidienne. Il focalise l’attention sur les formes de présence et d’écoute du rap dans les espaces publics urbains, en documentant, par l’ethnographie, trois pratiques manifestes : danser, rapper, diffuser du rap. Dès lors que ces pratiques se produisent en public et qu’elles troublent l’ambiance, elles ouvrent un potentiel de catégorisation sociale et de jugement moral particulièrement saillant dans les espaces urbains français.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".