Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article revient sur les événements du printemps 2013 qui avaient vu s’affronter tenants et adversaires du prétendu « mariage pour tous ». Il se propose de clarifier les arguments mobilisés par les uns et les autres au regard de ce que les sciences sociales ont pu établir quant à la manière de comprendre ce que « faire famille » signifie. Il souligne ainsi le poids de l’imaginaire social dans cette signification, singulièrement de notre imaginaire social christianisé. Il entend aussi situer les débats qui ont entouré l’adoption de la loi dite « mariage pour tous » dans le contexte de sociétés qui ont promu l’enfant et l’individu singulier au rang de « personne » dont la socialisation admet une autonomie principielle. Partant, il suggère, en procédant au désempilement du « sexe-genre-personne », qu’on se prononce en faveur d’un « mariage pour personne ».
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".