Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le terme de déchet représente un objet normativement considéré comme indésirable au sein d’un système social particulier. Son intérêt ethnologique naît des analyses structuro-fonctionnalistes liées aux notions de pureté et de souillure. À partir des années 1960, plusieurs anthropologues examinent les expériences culturelles associées à la gestion de déchet afin de comprendre les contextes sociaux qui conduisent à l’acceptation ou au rejet de certaines choses —et de certaines gens— comme des objets indésirables. Au lieu de considérer le déchet par l’entremise d’une ontologie fixe, les anthropologues ont étudié les déchets de manière phénoménologique, ainsi que dans des rapports de pouvoir et dans des structures socioéconomiques plus larges. Dans un contexte de pollution omniprésente, l’avenir de l’anthropologie des déchets demeure prometteur, s’entrecoupant avec des perspectives interdisciplinaires et des concepts comme l’anthropocène.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.092 | 0.022 |
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".