Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’étude des mutations et transformations des rituels funéraires oppose, depuis un certain temps, deux types de discours : l’un, ancré dans la tradition, et l’autre, dans la modernité. Le premier reproche au traitement moderne de la mort la tendance à la désymbolisation des rituels funéraires et à la déritualisation de la mort. Le second dénonce chez le premier les contraintes et obligations sociales trop exigeantes qu’impose les traditions culturelles aux endeuillés et l’intention d’utiliser les rituels funéraires pour réédifier le tissu des relations sociales fragilisées par la mort et la montée en puissance de l’individualisme. Mais aucun des deux discours n’évoque et ne discute de l’existence d’un possible lien entre les modes de traitement traditionnel et moderne de la mort. À partir d’une observation des rituels funéraires en pays bamiléké et de la littérature scientifique sur le sujet au Québec, l’article se propose de comparer les rituels funéraires dans les deux sociétés, afin d’en relever les aspects invariants ; ceux qui se sont transformés ; et ceux qui ont changé.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".