Alan Lomax en Louisiane : les hauts et les bas d’un chercheur de terrain1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article ne prétend pas repenser ici le travail considérable de ceux qui ont récemment étudié la vie et l’oeuvre de John et d’Alan Lomax sur les plans national et international. Il se limite plutôt à l’impact des Lomax en Louisiane française, surtout d’Alan, personnage qui se montrait à la fois inspirant et intimidant, frustrant et fascinant. Pendant les années 1930, John et Alan Lomax ont parcouru ce pays dans le but de réaliser des enregistrements de musique traditionnelle pour la Library of Congress. Leurs enregistrements sont devenus la base de l’Archive of Folk Song à la Library of Congress, véritable bijou de la musique traditionnelle des États-Unis. On dit d’Alan Lomax que ses observations étaient brillantes, tandis que ses interprétations passaient quelquefois à côté de la question. L’exposé ne cherche ni à glorifier ni à avilir, mais à reconnaître dûment le mérite et la critique dans la mesure où ils s’appliquent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".