Le concept d’improvisation revisité par l’anthropologie
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discutant le dialogue entre les études en danse et l’anthropologie de la danse, cet article vise à montrer les effets d’une pensée coloniale dans la répartition des objets d’étude. Il propose une réflexion sur les biais eurocentriques de certains concepts des études en danse, notamment celui d’improvisation. L’article esquisse brièvement les théories de l’improvisation et les débats qui oscillent entre, d’une part, l’improvisation en tant que vecteur d’émancipation, et d’autre part, l’improvisation comme structure contraignante. Il montre que la notion d’improvisation telle qu’observée sur un terrain ethnographique au sein des processus de création en Suisse correspond spécifiquement à un projet occidental. Quels enseignements pouvons-nous tirer du détour par d’autres cultures en ce qui concerne le concept d’improvisation ? En se basant sur une comparaison entre l’improvisation vécue au Nord (France, Suisse) et au Sud (Sénégal), l’auteure montre que la recherche de l’inédit n’est pas au cœur d’autres traditions dansées, remettant en question nos lectures universalistes des théories en danse.
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 | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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; 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".