MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Anthropologie des pratiques politiques Mohawks de Kahnawake, Canada : pouvoir, identités, subjectivations

2016· dissertation· W7148598586 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gilles Grienenberger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)EthnographyMohawk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nous proposons dans cette thèse une étude des phénomènes politiques dans la réserve mohawk de Kahnawake au Canada. Nous fondons notre interrogation sur des données croisées du symbolique et de la praxis, du perçu/vécu et des dimensions pragmatiques étayées par différents aspects de la culture matérielle. Ce projet d'anthropologie politique, qui fait des ontologies, des phénomènes de subjectivation et des pratiques les axes principaux de recherche, nous invite à investir autant les cadres normatifs et idéels que les dynamiques structurelles qui animent la communauté et ces différentes institutions. Nous souhaitions nous détacher des études qui se fondent sur des paradigmes construits à partir d'une dyade antagoniste tradition/modernité, authenticité/rupture, etc. De même, nous avons rompu avec des travaux qui pointent essentiellement les aspects fonctionnels du politique et des institutions. En serrant au plus près ce vaste ensemble, qui embrasse une variété de champs, nous postulons l'existence d'une mécanique sociale, politique et spirituelle cohérente capable d'épouser les courbes irrégulières de la vie de cette population, marquée par des angles aigus qu'ont dessiné la colonisation et ses conséquences.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0250.014
Scholarly communication0.0080.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.375 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→