MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125368789 · doi:10.3917/rdm.030.0496f

• Michel CARRIER, Penser le sacré. Les sciences humaines et l’invention du sacré, Liber, Montréal, 2005.

2007· article· fr· W7125368789 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
François Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue du MAUSS · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse multidisciplinary academic research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMichel foucaultHuman scienceHistory of scienceHistory of philosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La sociologie est foisonnante d’approches des hommes ou des sociétés, elle multiplie les angles de regard et les méthodes pour donner sens à l’action ou expliquer les mouvements incessants du social. Aucune analyse n’épuise les mouvements de sens. Toute analyse sociologique est une interprétation du social. La tâche des sciences humaines, et particulièrement sociales, n’est pas d’avoir réponse à tout, mais d’avoir question à tout et de mener l’interrogation le plus loin possible, non pas pour le plaisir de déconstruire, mais pour observer les jeux de sens qui tiennent ensemble les liens sociaux.

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)0.004
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.004

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.287 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue du MAUSSSame topicDiverse multidisciplinary academic researchFrench-language works237,207