Procès de civilisation et transformations sociales; une discussion de la théorie de Norbert Elias dans le domaine du sport
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Norbert Elias’ theory of the civilizing process is still relevant in the social sciences of sport, as evidenced by the many current references. However, the numerous studies carried out over the past thirty years show some limitations in this area. How can we explain its persistence?After recalling the plan of the German sociologist to explain the creation of English sport in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by a transformation of morals which, after experiencing the violent time of the Antique Games, committed itself at the end of the Middle Ages, this study reflects some inconsistencies through the historical and epistemological analysis of key concepts such as sport, sportivization, configuration and violence. A profoundly ambiguous approach is then highlighted between, on the one hand, the process of transformation which, purporting to be linear, is based on apparently solid socio-political and economic analyses and, on the other hand, the appearance of new objects to be highlighted by epistemic ruptures. If this blind point, therefore, opens up many erroneous interpretations, also often participating in strengthening the theory of the civilizing process, its analysis should make it possible not to deny the validity of the Eliasian scheme, but to enrich it and to overcome it.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".