Femme active et femme au foyer dans le woman’s horror film américain des années 2000 : ambivalences, contradictions et impasse post-féministe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les années 2000 voient la sortie d’un grand nombre de films d’horreur qui sont aussi des woman’s films. Ces oeuvres montrent une femme confrontée à des créatures monstrueuses, souvent d’origine surnaturelle, et à des problèmes spécifiquement féminins, tels que la maternité et le conflit travail/foyer. À travers l’analyse détaillée de deux woman’s horror films de l’époque — The Ring (Gore Verbinski, 2002) et The Others (Alejandro Amenábar, 2001) —, l’auteure se propose de comparer, dans un premier temps, le traitement réservé à la femme active et à la femme au foyer dans leur relation à la maternité et aux rôles de victime, de monstre ou d’héroïne qu’on leur attribue au sein du récit d’horreur. L’ambivalence du discours tenu par le woman’s horror film sur ses personnages principaux féminins est, dans un deuxième temps, mise en relation avec l’émergence du post-féminisme et son influence grandissante sur la culture populaire américaine des années 2000.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".