MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312694809 · doi:10.4000/tc.16567

Rire ou ne pas rire… telle est l’injonction !

2022· article· fr· W4312694809 on OpenAlexaff
Inès Pasqueron de Fommervault

Bibliographic record

VenueTechniques & culture · 2022
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicHumor Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tout le monde apprend à rire, mais rares sont ceux qui en ont conscience. En effet, contrairement à d’autres comportements sociaux le rire fait rarement l’objet d’un apprentissage explicite, c’est pourquoi il peut être vécu comme une habitude quasi automatique. Pour autant, les manières de rire résultent toujours de l’intériorisation d’une certaine grammaire affective. Elles rendent compte d’un programme social, institué plus ou moins formellement, qui vise à déterminer les cadres du rire, définissant ses acteurs, ses contextes, ses objets et même, ses caractéristiques physiques et acoustiques. Dans les villages de la Kagera, en Tanzanie, les pratiques du rire s’apprennent et se transmettent dès le plus jeune âge selon différentes formes d’apprentissage. À l’âge de 5 ans, les techniques d’inhibition du rire chez l’enfant participent de son processus de maturation. Il a surmonté la fragilité de la petite enfance et peut (doit) désormais apprendre à devenir un être social ce qui, dans ces villages, signifie surtout apprendre à maîtriser l’extériorisation publique de ses affects. Cette discipline affective s’opère également dans des cadres cérémoniels où la canalisation des corps infantiles s’effectue cette fois via l’exacerbation normée et institutionnalisée du rire et du faire-rire.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.012
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.013

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 venueTechniques & cultureSame topicHumor Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207