Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’ami mohawk existe. Je ne l’ai jamais rencontré. Nous nous écrivons et, parfois, parlons au téléphone. C’est tout. Dans mon texte, je cherche à appréhender plusieurs niveaux d’analyse. Interroger la nature symbolique et historique du rapport à l’Autre. Montrer le lieu du discours de l’anthropologue. Suivre le fil complexe d’événements qui n’en finiront plus désormais de surgir. Saisir la nature des relations troubles que nous entretenons, francophones et anglophones. Montrer comment elle exerce un effet dévastateur sur les autochtones. Le temps passe. Où irons-nous? Tel le héros du roman de Carpentier, Le partage des eaux, nous supportons mal la démesure de notre société, et nous fuyons pour découvrir, ô dérision, qu’elle s’est insinuée partout. Le monde que nous imaginions dans l’idéal et par la magie de l’idéologie n’existe nulle part. Debout sur la ligne de partage des eaux, nous hésitons, ignorant où diriger nos pas. Le temps presse. La porte qui s’ouvre sur l’autre univers que nous avions rêvé se fait de plus en plus étroite.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.014 |
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".