Regards critiques sur la notion d’institution en sociologie des religions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose une discussion des usages du concept « d’institution » en sciences sociales des religions à partir de la confrontation de trois enquêtes empiriques sur des terrains et des religiosités différents (pentecôtisme en Suède, bouddhisme en Europe du Sud, catholicisme en Italie). L’institutionnalisation comme processus social continu n’est pas antinomique de formes de désinstitutionnalisation du religieux, si cette notion présentée par Danièle Hervieu-Léger est retravaillée pour décrire des situations de redéploiement des contraintes dans une sociologie de l’agir religieux plutôt que comme paradigme de compréhension de la sécularisation. Des institutionnalisations paradoxales du religieux peuvent être étudiées dans les catégorisations sociopolitiques, des rôles et pratiques redéfinis par des dynamiques externes, ainsi qu’à partir de trajectoires interinstitutionnelles d’acteurs.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".