MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3179153488 · doi:10.7202/1078166ar

Culture du manioc au Congo-Kinshasa

2021· article· fr· W3179153488 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jean-Claude Mboka Ingoli

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical scienceEthnologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

D’une extrémité à l’autre du paysage Maringa-Lopori-Wamba, au nord-ouest du Congo-Kinshasa, les agriculteurs bongando et mongo cultivent le manioc dans les champs familiaux aménagés à la lisière des plantations abandonnées d’héritage colonial. Par le biais de ces écologies simplifiées aujourd’hui en résurgence, différentes expériences nous guident vers des possibilités de vie du manioc cohabitant avec d’autres organismes humains et non humains. Dès l’aménagement de l’espace à cultiver et jusqu’à la plantation des boutures, des formes d’attachement, sous forme d’alliances et de liens affectifs, s’instaurent entre les humains et le manioc ainsi qu’avec tous les autres êtres visibles et invisibles, potentiellement engagés dans le devenir du cultigène. Les humains s’entourent d’alliés de la vie, ancêtres et génies, et de forces latentes, animales et végétales, qu’ils peuvent éveiller par un usage adéquat de la parole. D’un village à l’autre, la culture du manioc est un enchevêtrement de formes de vie qui fait entrer les humains dans un mouvement continu de vie, en développant une proximité affective avec les plantes et en s’harmonisant avec d’autres lignes de vie, selon divers mouvements rythmiques destinés à les connaître et à les approcher.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.275
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologie et Sociétés→Same topicFrench Urban and Social Studies→French-language works237,207→