Bibliographic record
Abstract
En m’appuyant sur l’ethnographie classique et sur des propos recueillis au Nunavut (Arctique canadien) à l’occasion de plusieurs ateliers de transmission des savoirs, j’examine comment les Inuit conçoivent certains objets utilisés pour la chasse. Ces objets donnent de la vitalité ou la mort. J’avance l’idée que la dynamique relationnelle l’emporte sur la dynamique substantielle, ces deux logiques étant cependant coprésentes. Autrement dit, le pouvoir des objets de chasse découle moins des substances et des matériaux qui les composent, ou même de leur agencéité propre, que de leur mise en circulation, donc d’intentionnalités, de leur don et des échanges qui s’enchaînent. La puissance des objets inuit s’active dès qu’ils sont reçus d’un donateur et ce, au-delà du pouvoir intrinsèque des matériaux qui entrent dans leur composition. Les substances corporelles, en particulier le sang menstruel, occupent une place singulière, générant la mort. Le souffle, quant à lui, produit de la vitalité.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".