Réflexions autour de la notion d’homophobie : succès politique, malaises conceptuels et application empirique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Après en avoir retracé rapidement la genèse, cet article rapporte les principales critiques adressées au concept d’homophobie, notamment son réductionnisme qui tend vers des explications de nature psychologique ainsi que l’éviction de la hiérarchie des sexes/genres. Nous discutons ensuite deux pistes théoriques permettant de contourner les limites précédemment identifiées. La première examine le potentiel de l’approche intersectionnelle. La seconde voie invite à une redéfinition du concept d’homophobie, lui reconnaissant une portée exclusivement descriptive, et non plus en tant que concept explicatif, justifiant ainsi sa subordination au concept d’hétérosexisme qui offre une perspective systémique. Nous examinons ces concepts en fonction de leur capacité à rendre compte de l’oppression des lesbiennes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".