MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aliocha Wald Lasowski, Sur l’épaule des dieux. Les arts d’Édouard Glissant

2023· article· fr· W4390783100 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Treiber

Bibliographic record

VenueHommes & migrations · 2023
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Cultural and Historical Studies
Canadian institutionsWorld Federation of Science Journalists
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’histoire des relations, très anciennes, entre la Chine et le monde musulman est retracée dans le livre d’Emmanuel Lincot, Chine et terres d’Islam. Un millénaire de géopolitique (PUF, 2021). Ces relations ont toujours été caractérisées par « un inépuisable pragmatisme et interdisent une vision géopolitique bipolaire opposant un monde associé aux États-Unis à un agrégat d’États musulmans non arabes jouant la carte chinoise ». Dans le chapitre 6 dédié aux Nouvelles routes de la soie, l’auteur les met en relation avec le monde musulman proche de la Chine. Le pragmatisme de Pékin est à nouveau souligné par l’auteur : « capter les ressources du monde, les exploiter et en sécuriser l’acheminement constitue le fondement principal de cette stratégie » (p. 277). Il précise que « les Nouvelles Routes de la soie constituent un projet d’affirmation de puissance et sont le reflet de la volonté pour Xi Jinping que son pays n’ait à subir aucun risque des secousses sociales liées à des problèmes alimentaires ou énergétiques, […] une vulnérabilité qui, déjà en son temps, n’avait pas échappé à Deng Xiaoping. Dès les années 1980, ce dernier déclarait en effet : “Au Moyen-Orient il y a le pétrole. En Chine, les terres rares” (Zhongdong you shiyou. Zhongguo you xi tu ) » (p. 278).

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHommes & migrationsSame topicDiverse Cultural and Historical StudiesFrench-language works237,207