MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1525225086 · doi:10.7202/039213ar

Le « masculinisme » : une histoire politique du mot (en anglais et en français)

2010· article· fr· W1525225086 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches féministes · 2010
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’auteur propose une histoire politique des mots « masculinisme » et « masculinism », de la fin du XIX e siècle à aujourd’hui. Son analyse comparative dans le temps, entre les langues de même qu’entre les positions féministes et antiféministes, permet de constater que la signification des mots reste plurielle et l’objet de luttes politiques. Du côté anglophone, le mot est employé le plus souvent pour désigner l’idéologie patriarcale ou une perspective masculine androcentrée. Du côté francophone, à partir des années 90, le mot est de plus en plus fréquemment employé pour désigner un courant antiféministe . De leur côté, les antiféministes ne s’entendent pas quant à la meilleure appellation pour se nommer eux-mêmes, hésitant entre les termes « masculinisme », « masculiste », « hoministe » ou « humaniste » ou encore d’autres expressions, comme « militant des droits des hommes ou des pères ». Cette étude du langage met en relief certaines lignes de front où s’opposent féministes et antiféministes.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.891
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.270 · 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