MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7069868568

Griots

2023· book-chapter· fr· W7069868568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLeiden Repository (Leiden University) · 2023
Typebook-chapter
Languagefr
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnographyIdentity (music)Quarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tout juste rétabli d'une année de maladie, au lendemain d'une exploration du Haut Niger au cours de laquelle il avait presque tout perdu, sauf son couvre-chef et quelques notes écrites, Mungo Park écrit : « [le 21 avril 1797], nous fûmes en vue de Kinytakooro, ville considérable […] Comme c'était la première ville que nous trouvions hors des frontières du Manding, on observa plus d'étiquette qu'à l'ordinaire.[…] En entrant dans la ville, nous nous rendîmes au bentang, où le peuple se réunit autour de nous pour écouter notre dentegi (histoire) : elle fut racontée publiquement par deux Jilli keas (griots chanteurs -JJ).Ils rapportèrent toutes les petites circonstances qui avaient rapport à la caravane, commençant par les événements arrivés le même jour, et remontant ainsi la série des faits jusqu'à Kamalia (l'endroit de départ -JJ).» Cette description ethnographique rare, voire unique, d'un groupe de griots [jeli/jali ; le suffixe kè indique le masculin] de l'Afrique de l'Ouest nous offre des informations cruciales sur la façon dont ces personnages étaient considérés avant l'occupation française au XIX e siècle.Dans la langue populaire actuelle, « [ka] dantègè » est souvent rendu par l'expression « se rendre compte ».Du point de vue étymologique, dan.tègè signifie « limiter-couper » , et les dictionnaires

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)0.002
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4990.270

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.159
Teacher spread0.135 · 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
GenreOther

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 venueLeiden Repository (Leiden University)Same topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207