La conception des rapports entre politique et religion au sein du mouvement tunisien Ennaḥḍaẗ et les organisations dont il est issu (de 1960 au 14 janvier 2011)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Afin de replacer dans leur profondeur historique des questions qui taraudent encore aujourd’hui la société tunisienne, à savoir celles concernant les rapports entre les sphères politique et religieuse et l’appréhension du concept de laïcité en tant que mode politique d’organisation des rapports existant entre ces deux sphères, cet article propose une analyse des positions du mouvement Ennaḥḍaẗ et des organisations dont il est issu sur ces questions dans la période s’étendant des années 1960 au 14 janvier 2011. Après avoir rappelé en premier lieu le contexte dans lequel le mouvement islamiste tunisien se développa, cet article envisagera trois périodes principales correspondant aux différentes structures associatives puis politiques au sein desquelles ce mouvement s’organisa, les positions du mouvement Ennaḥḍaẗ et des organisations dont il est issu, ayant su, tout en restant relativement stable, s’adapter aux différentes contingences politiques.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".