MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7134388074

Raquettes à neige au Québec et quilles de 9 en France - au prisme du patrimoine culturel immatériel

2016· article· fr· W7134388074 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mathilde Lamothe

Bibliographic record

Venuetheses.fr (ABES) · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSport and Mega-Event Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsESPACEEthnographyHuman scienceMythology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reposant sur une apparente antinomie, les champs du patrimoine et du sport suscitent une réflexion sur les liens qu'ils entretiennent en dépassant le schéma binaire classique tradition/modernité. Aussi le repérage d'expressions sportives pouvant relever du patrimoine culturel immatériel (tel que défini par l'Unesco en 2003) permet de questionner les mécanismes de production de cette nouvelle forme patrimoniale, ainsi que les enjeux politiques, scientifiques et méthodologiques qui leur sont liés. L'hypothese de cette étude repose sur le postulat que le concept de patrimoine culturel immatériel peut etre opératoire pour saisir le vivant et apprécier la valeur patrimoniale des pratiques ou expressions culturelles. Sa vérification empirique, par l'entrée ethnographique des jeux et sports traditionnels, met en perspective ce champ patrimonial en confrontant deux terrains d'enquete différents : les raquettes a neige au Québec (Canada) et les quilles de 9 en Gascogne (Aquitaine, France). En effet l'étude comparée de ces activités sportives autorise une analyse des fondements et des évolutions des cultures québécoises et gasconnes, ainsi que la maniere dont les acteurs locaux se positionnent par rapport a leur héritage culturel. Ce faisant, ils réinventent de nouveaux processus de transmission dans un syncrétisme singulier qui bouscule les définitions accordées au sport et au patrimoine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.268 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetheses.fr (ABES)Same topicSport and Mega-Event ImpactsFrench-language works237,207