Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les sciences sociales comme les recherches féministes ont tardé à s’intéresser au processus de vieillissement. La double invisibilité des femmes et de la vieillesse a eu tendance à s’estomper avec l’intérêt pour les relations intergénérationnelles et les inégalités de genre dans les dispositifs de soutien aux personnes aînées. Un parcours, certes partiel, dans les productions sur les rapports entre genre et vieillissement met en évidence des permanences comme le thème du double standard de l’âge, mais aussi le développement progressif, sans qu’il soit linéaire, d’un intérêt pour les expériences plurielles du vieillir parallèlement à la mise en visibilité de la place des femmes dans les réseaux de parenté et de soin (care). Cette petite histoire permet de poser des repères et d’avancer dans la compréhension des inégalités de parcours entre hommes et femmes ainsi que dans les propositions pour leurs transformations.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
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".