<b>Rapports sociaux de sexe/genre et droit: repenser le droit</b><b><i>Dirigé par Louise Langevin</i></b> <i>(Paris: Éditions des archives contemporaines/Agence universitaire de la Francophonie, 2008)</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Roughly translated as Gendered Social Relations and Law: Re-Thinking Law, this edited collection was directed by Louise Langevin, the Claire-Bonenfant Chair on the Status of Women at Laval University in Quebec. One objective of the publisher, l’Agence universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF), was to create a space for the global French-speaking academic community to share ideas, develop collaborative relationships between researchers and teachers, and ensure wide distribution in countries of the South. This volume, identified as part of the ‘‘manuel’’ series in the AUF collection, is intended to provide cutting edge research in areas of interest to the whole francophone community with particular emphasis on the needs of the countries of the South. With authors from Senegal, Canada, and France writing on topics such as transnational and environmental law, the Internet and religion, or as localized as family law in Benin and polygamy in Canada, this volume easily meets that goal. Langevin and her collaborators set a further goal for this collection: to analyze the way that law approaches social relations among the sexes—in other words, to query the ways that the law takes into account, or ignores, the category of ‘‘women’’ while recognizing various political, social, historical, and cultural contexts. They show, in the chapters of the volume, that while law may be used as a tool for social change that benefits women, the outcomes are often unpredictable when favourable laws and decisions are applied without adequate consideration of women’s particular situations. In this way, the law is a double-edged sword for women, leading all of the authors to condemn the
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
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".