Les rapports de domination au sein du mouvement des femmes à Bruxelles : critiques et résistances des féministes minoritaires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’article examine les rapports de domination au sein du féminisme majoritaire francophone bruxellois que dénoncent des féministes minoritaires. Une première partie décrit le processus de construction politique du groupe des femmes minoritaires établi sur la base de la confession (réelle ou supposée) et de la couleur de la peau. La deuxième partie présente le paysage complexe du féminisme francophone et son approche des femmes minoritaires et de leurs préoccupations, tandis que la troisième met en relief les résistances des féministes minoritaires à la domination et leur influence sur la reconfiguration des organisations féministes. La dernière partie s’appuie sur des témoignages de féministes minoritaires pour illustrer les tensions et les controverses. En conclusion, l’article propose des pistes pour tenter de dépasser les antagonismes qui divisent et paralysent le mouvement féministe bruxellois.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".