Les Rencontres internationales sur la santé des femmes : continuité et expression d’identités multiples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Au fil des années, les Rencontres internationales sur la santé des femmes (International Women and Health Meetings, ou IWHM) sont devenues l’un des principaux moments de rencontre pour les défenseurs de la santé des femmes ainsi que pour les universitaires, institutions financières et autres réseaux intervenant sur la santé et les droits génésiques des femmes. Le présent article soutient que c’est le mode d’organisation qui a permis aux militantes féministes chargées d’organiser les IWHM de s’adapter aux changements politiques survenus au fil du temps, en permettant l’expression et la reconnaissance des diverses identités (nationale, régionale, sexuelle, biologique). L’article retrace la manière dont la reconnaissance de ces identités a permis aux IWHM de survivre et fructifier comme organisation, et de demeurer à la fine pointe du discours sur les droits des femmes, en particulier leurs droits sexuels et génésiques.
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 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".