Le couple Nature/Culture (encore !)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’opposition moderne Nature/Culture, que l’on a prise à tort pour un universel, n’a pas d’équivalent exact dans de nombreux systèmes de représentation du cosmos. À partir d’une analyse des catégories animales autochtones et de mythes nahuas et mazatèques, les auteurs démontrent, en premier lieu, que la nature y est vue comme participant, mais de façon inégale, au monde surnaturel : certaines plantes (comme le maïs) et certains animaux (monstres ou « animaux parfaits ») assurent cette continuité. En second lieu, concernant les rapports nécessaires et dangereux des humains avec ce monde naturel/surnaturel, ils sont bidirectionnels ; le comportement des humains influence celui des êtres de la nature, d’une part, et les forces de la nature contrôlent certaines actions humaines particulièrement importantes, d’autre part. Ces rapports sont ici représentés comme des rapports de couple, soit impossibles, quand la Nature est symbolisée comme force destructrice (Jean Ours), soit délicats mais stables, quand elle apparaît comme puissance de fécondité (le boa).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.007 |
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".