Bibliographic record
Abstract
Une part significative de nos échanges et interactions quotidiennes est ménagée à la question de l’amour et des rapports amoureux. C’est en effet par l’interaction et la conversation quotidienne que l’onentreen relation, que l’on parledenotre relation, que l’on parle des situationsdes autres, etc. À l’aide d’une méthodologie novatrice, le débriefing conversationnel, nous avons eu l’occasion de nous pencher sur les thématiques prégnantes de la normativité et de l’individualité contemporaine présentes dans les récits de conversation de participants variés. Nous proposons de présenter nos résultats de recherche selon trois moments de l’interaction qui ressortent de notre terrain d’enquête : 1) Comment parle-t-on de l’amour ? 2) Comment parle-t-on en amour ? et finalement : 3) Comment reçoit-on ces conversationsenamour etsurl’amour ? Nous aimerions ainsi mieux comprendre comment et de quelles manières les expériences de sociabilité contemporaines contribuent à construire les normes amoureuses.
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 | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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; 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".