L’invisibilité lesbienne dans la sphère publique (médiatique) : pratiques et enjeux d’une identité proto-politique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La collectivite lesbienne est marquee par la marginalite et l’invisibilite dans la sphere publique. Partant de ce contexte, cet article propose une reflexion portant sur la construction collective de l’identite lesbienne. Il suggere que la visibilite (mediatique) d’aujourd’hui implique des risques de distorsion des propos tenus par les publics lesbiens, ce qui non seulement reproduit les rapports de pouvoir societaux, mais remet en question le rapport entre visibilite et reconnaissance. Adoptant une conception plurielle des spheres publiques, l’article fait alors valoir qu’il existe une multitude de publics lesbiens heterogenes, chacun vehiculant des discours varies plus ou moins (in) visibles. Ces differentes (in) visibilites contribuent toutes a l’(auto) reconnaissance des lesbiennes. L’article conclut en avancant que la mise en dialogue et la recherche de zones de consensus entre ces divers publics contribuent a la construction collective d’une identite proto-politique, a savoir une identite prealable et habilitante a la politique mediatisee. The emergence of the lesbian collectivity is marked by marginality and invisibility in the public sphere. Drawing on this context, I discuss the collective construction of lesbian identity. I show that contemporary (mediatized) visibility involves risks of distortion and simplification of the marginal public discourses that not only reproduce society’s power relations but also question the relation between visibility and social recognition. Concurring with a pluralistic conception of public spheres, I argue that multiple, (in)visible and heterogeneous lesbian publics exist, each of which convey different discourses according to different interests that may be divergent. These (in)visible publics equally contribute to social and self-recognition of the lesbian collectivity. I conclude by suggesting that dialogue and the search for areas of consensus among these various publics can contribute to the collective construction of a proto-political identity, that is, an identity that is preliminary and habilitating to mediatized politics.
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".