MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409539181 · doi:10.7202/1117552ar

Imaginaire chrétien et rhétorique populiste. De l’instrumentalisation à la matrice idéologique : description d’une dynamique transnationale

2024· article· fr· W4409539181 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Blandine Chélini-Pont, Yann Raison du Cleuziou

Bibliographic record

VenueÉtudes internationales · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Discourse Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comme l’observe Olivier Roy, la sécularisation du christianisme européen se traduit par une culturalisation des références chrétiennes. Libérés de leur signification religieuse, ces symboles deviennent des marqueurs culturels patrimoniaux et peuvent faire l’objet d’une instrumentalisation politique. À ce titre, « les racines chrétiennes » sont devenues un topique des discours populistes, que ce soit en France, en Italie, en Pologne, en Hongrie, en Bavière ou ailleurs. Patrimonialisé comme matrice culturelle, le christianisme permet de concurrencer l’identification du peuple aux citoyens en construisant un « vrai » peuple identifiable à sa culture. Les musulmans ou les minorités sexuelles se trouvent symboliquement exclus du corps civique et leurs demandes disqualifiées pour être des déviances. Cette rhétorique serait un indicateur d’une tendance à l’illibéralisme à l’échelle globale. Mais le paradigme de la sécularisation a ses limites. Car comment expliquer le succès des leaders populistes dans des aires géographiques bien moins sécularisées que l’Europe comme le Brésil et les États-Unis ? Il existe en fait des affinités profondes entre la rhétorique populiste et certaines théologies 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 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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0110.035
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueÉtudes internationalesSame topicLinguistics and Discourse AnalysisFrench-language works237,207