Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article examine les relations entre mythe et histoire à partir d’un cas particulier. La première partie de l’article est une analyse formelle qui tente de comparer un mythe d’origine recueilli chez les Dìì avec les mythes de même nature que racontent les voisins. On y distingue des inversions et des variations qui, de ce point de vue formel, font penser à des démarquages qui visent simplement à la différenciation et qui placent les mythes dìì dans un ensemble supra-ethnique. Cependant, une étude subséquente et la collecte d’autres mythes dìì traitant du même sujet, mais sur un plan plus local, montrent que le premier mythe analysé est une transformation récente des mythes recueillis plus tard pour en faire un projet politique. Les transformations formelles modernes réduisent les mythes traditionnels à un seul en les inversant ce qui, loin de refléter une structure politique et sociale ancienne, en produit une autre, censée être tout aussi mythique, pour mieux justifier les changements politiques que s’appliquent à réaliser les disséminateurs du mythe.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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".