MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1483079425 · doi:10.25071/1923-9408.25247

Une femme peut-elle être père?

2001· article· fr· W1483079425 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Éliane Pons

Bibliographic record

VenueTessera · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policies and Family
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eliane Pons's essay uses a question posed by the practice of artificial insemination in lesbian couples -Can a woman be a father?-to underline the arbitrariness and insecurity of the Oedipal norm.Starting from a reading of Lacan's anxious anticipation of this question in 1960, Pons argues that what is at stake in the exercise of the paternal function is the pre-eminence of the father-figure in the symbolic order, a social preference predicated upon the exclusion of women from this role.En 1960, Lacan s'interrogeait: «Faudra-t-il que nous soyons rejoints par la pratique qui prendra peut-etre en un temps force d'usage, d'inseminer artificiellement les femmes en rupture du ban phallique, avec le sperme d'un grand homme, pour tirer de nous, sur la fonction paternelle un verdict?» (Subversion du sujet et dialectique du desir 813).Et si c'etait le cas, en effet ?A1'heure actuelle, des familles homoparentales qui ont et elevent des enfants demandent la distinction et l'inscription de trois formes de filiation: biologique, legale et sociale.Dans le cas des couples lesbiens, qui nous occupe ici, c'est la place du pere qui est parfois radicalement mise en question lorsque rune d'entre elles decide d'avoir un enfant par insemination artificielle avec donneur anonyme (le sperme d'un grand homme ne les faisant, contrairement aLacan, nullement fantasmer).L'anticipation lacanienne ne peut etre que celle d'un tenant de la « societe androcentrique », pour reprendre son expression, d'un qui deplore le declin de la societe des peres... Et justement, le choix de l'insemination fait par la majorite d'entre elles, pointe l'ecart qui les separe.L'homme, loin de faire 1'objet de leur idealisation, peut se reduire a quelques paillettes.Lorsque leur choix se porte sur un individu particulier, c'est tres souvent sur un homosexuel de leur entourage apprecie pour sa conception de la parentalite, comme en temoignent les interviews d'homosexuelles recueillis par Eric Dubreuil.Dans le cas qui nous occupe ici, la procreation etant reglee par le recours a 1'insemination artificielle, la question de Lacan : « Qu'est ce qu'un pere ?» est plus que jamais d'actualite.Une autre rest plus particulierement, qui peut paraitre saugrenue : « Une femme peutelle etre pere ?»

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTesseraSame topicSocial Policies and FamilyFrench-language works237,207