Bulletin bibliographique de la revue Archives de sciences sociales des religions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
106 comptes rendus 5 notes critiques Atelier des sciences sociales du religieux Autour de Wiktor Stoczkowski, La science sociale comme vision du monde. Emile Durkheim et le mirage du salut, Paris, Gallimard, 2019 1/ Marcel Fournier (universite de Montreal) – Le fondateur sur la sellette 2/ Philippe Steiner (Sorbonne Universite) – Troubles dans la « vision du monde » 3/ Salvador Juan (universite de Caen) – Retourner le stigmate Notes critiques 4/ Alexis Artaud de La Ferriere – Laicite : le debat bat son plein 5/ Catherine Clementin-Ojha – Actualite des etudes sur les hindous 6/ Jacques Palard – Gerer l’alterite religieuse. Islam, catholicisme et laicite en France, au Maghreb et au Quebec 7/ Jacques Palard – Recherche sociologique et theologique et action religieuse : usages de l’autobiographie raisonnee 8/ Benoit Vermander – La « religion chinoise » : categorie ouverte ou en voie d’epuisement ? Lectures croisees autour de Pierre Lassave, La sociologie des religions, Paris, Editions de l’EHESS, 2019 9/ Cecile Vanderpelen-Diagre – Observation stroboscopique d’un objet flottant mais bien identifie 10/ Grace Davie – Reflections on Pierre Lassave 11/ Enzo Pace – Passerelles dans un archipel savant
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.125 | 0.042 |
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".