Au crématoire comme « chez soi » : hybridité d’une transition funéraire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur la façon dont les crématoires – considérés à la fois comme espaces techniques et lieux d’accueil des proches et de préparation des corps – ont été progressivement intégrés à l’environnement des cimetières. Prenant appui sur une recherche ethnographique menée en Suisse romande, il décrit les tendances qui s’observent dès le tournant du 21 e siècle lors de rénovations architecturales d’espaces funéraires, tendances qui mettent en exergue le caractère transitionnel et éphémère du cycle de vie, dans une perspective humaniste. Ces dernières s’articulent néanmoins avec les composantes monumentales des cimetières héritées du 19 e siècle. Cela se traduit dans une forme d’hybridité funéraire qui alimente les imaginaires que les sociétés contemporaines entretiennent avec les morts et la mort.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".