MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303437086 · doi:10.7202/1092144ar

Rapatrier le matériel phytogénétique, en revenir aux semences

2022· article· fr· W4303437086 on OpenAlexaff
Ingrid J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d’études autochtones · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La question du rapatriement deslandraces(variétés paysannes) auprès des communautés autochtones et locales qui les ont domestiquées, sélectionnées et continuent encore à les cultiver, est au coeur de cet article. Ces vingt-cinq dernières années, face à des institutions internationales frileuses, différents acteurs se sont mobilisés, en dehors mais également depuis ces mêmes institutions, pour que ce terme soit adopté. L’auteure propose ici d’analyser ce processus en termes de controverse scientifique dans le cadre de laquelle les différents acteurs ont ouvert un espace de dialogue et de négociation autour de la gouvernance des ressources phytogénétiques à différentes échelles (globale, nationale, locale). La réflexion porte en grande partie sur le cas, pionnier, de la pomme de terre, mais l’auteure ne s’y est pas restreinte. Cet article s’intéresse aussi à la façon dont ces débats contribuent à déconstruire le commun global constitué pour les ressources phytogénétiques dans les domaines de l’alimentation et de l’agriculture en opérant un double processus de reterritorialisation et de rematérialisation. Ces ressources redeviennent ainsi peu à peu des semences ancrées territorialement, historiquement et culturellement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d’études autochtonesSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207