MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367159044 · doi:10.7202/1078733ar

Enracinement de l’identité : la tenure foncière à Longana, Vanuatu

2021· article· fr· W4367159044 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret Critchlow Rodman

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture · 2021
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFrench Urban and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceEthnologyPhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les études ethnologiques de tenure foncière laissent en général de côté le concept de « lieu » perçu comme un espace vécu pour se consacrer principalement aux droits de propriété conçus comme des segments hiérarchisés à l’intérieur d’un régime foncier. Cependant, ces catégories de jure peuvent être artificielles et mal s’accorder aux modes de comportement qui se manifestent dans l’organisation des droits d’accès à la terre. Cet article traite de la tenure foncière traditionnelle à partir d’une interprétation des signes qui sous-tendent l’enracinement dans les lieux. L’espace, pour les gens de Longana dans l’île d’Aoba, au Nord du Vanuatu, c’est d’abord un lieu. À partir de cette idée, je définis la signification de lieux habités et j’avance comme hypothèse centrale que les signes que les gens affichent dans leur interaction avec leur univers social et physique peuvent avoir une importance plus grande que ne l’ont les principes de parenté et de filiation pour la transmission du contrôle foncier. Ce type d’approche apporte une dimension nouvelle à l’étude de la tenure foncière traditionnelle : la terre n’est plus ici un simple contexte passif, mais elle foisonne au contraire de significations que les hommes ont créées en s’appropriant le monde.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCultureSame topicFrench Urban and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207