Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les pratiques humanitaires musulmanes contemporaines sont imprégnées du langage de la solidarité religieuse. Pourtant, les historiens et les politologues ont montré que les déclarations d’unité islamique ne sont pas défendables et que le discours au sujet de la communauté religieuse (l’oumma) a une fonction idéologique. Plus largement, les tentatives des sciences sociales de comprendre l’oumma se fondent souvent sur sa répudiation théologique des catégories politiques modernes (nation-État-territoire). Au contraire, à partir d’un travail de terrain mené auprès d’organismes d’aide humanitaire en Jordanie et en tant que contribution à l’anthropologie politique de la religion, cet article plaide en faveur d’une autre façon de comprendre l’oumma : en n’exposant pas la différence entre l’idéal et la réalité, mais en envisageant plutôt la communauté religieuse sous la forme de sa perte.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".