L'homosexualité masculine et les discours sur le sexe en contexte montréalais de la fin du XIXe siècle à la Révolution tranquille
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La croyance populaire ainsi qu'une certaine theologie accordent souvent au discours religieux sur l'homosexualite une permanence doctrinale qu'il n'a pas. Les mythes populaires ont longtemps attribue la stigmatisation sociale de l'homosexualite au recit de Sodome. La critique historique du rapport entre religion et homosexualite permet cependant de mettre en evidence le caractere construit de ce discours et ses rapports avec le juridique et le medical. Le present article veut etablir de quelle maniere ces discours ont pu s'elaborer au Quebec, et particulierement dans la region montrealaise, entre la fin du XIXe siecle et la Revolution tranquille. L'approche historique suggere une nouvelle hermeneutique qui met en lumiere les veritables impulsions qui sous-tendent le discours religieux sur l'homosexualite. Popular belief and certain types of theology often ascribe a continuity of doctrine to the religious discourse on homosexuality which, in fact, this discourse does not have. Popular myths have long attributed the social stigma of homosexuality to the story of Sodom. Historical criticism of the relationship between religion and homosexuality will bring to the fore the social construction of the religious discourse and its historical connections with the secular discourses of law and medicine. The following article will try to demonstrate how these discourses developed in Quebec, and particularly in the Montreal region, from the end of the nineteenth century to the Quiet Revolution. The historical approach taken here puts forward a new interpretation that brings to the light the real motivations that underlie the religious discourse on homosexuality.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".