Dossier : « Patrimoines, savoirs, pouvoirs » – À qui appartiennent les paysages des villages shui ? Mise en tourisme et rapports de pouvoir au Guizhou (Chine du Sud)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette contribution interroge la mise en tourisme du Guizhou, en Chine du Sud, à travers le cas de trois villages de la minorité ethnique shui. La promotion de ces villages au rang de sites touristiques officiels suit un modèle d’aménagement standardisé, ayant pour double objectif le développement économique et la construction d’une identité nationale. Elle implique aussi des transformations souvent importantes du paysage quotidien des populations. Pris entre les actions développementalistes de l’État et les stratégies aménagistes locales, les paysages constituent un véritable enjeu : au final, à qui appartiennent les paysages de ces villages shui ? Après la présentation de trois situations contrastées, les représentations qu’ont les habitants des transformations de leur paysage sont analysées. Celles-ci révèlent l’évolution de leur regard et leur adhésion au modèle dans ses principes d’aménagement. Mais des tensions émergent, ce qui témoigne du faible pouvoir dont disposent les populations dans le processus économique et politique de développement touristique.
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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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".