Usages de psychoactifs, rôles sexuels et genre en contexte festif gay (Paris/Toulouse, 2007)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article montre que les discours qui rendent compte de l’usage sexuel des psychoactifs révèlent tout autant les règles sociales dominantes qui assignent à chaque sexe un code de conduite spécifique dans l’acte sexuel que l’idéologie normative en vigueur dans un sous-groupe particulier. L’analyse, centrée sur l’usage de psychoactifs associé à la pénétration anale entre hommes, s’appuie sur cinquante entretiens ouverts et semi-directifs avec des usagers de psychoactifs s’identifiant comme gay et des informateurs clés, dans le cadre de l’enquête ethnographique Homosexualité masculine et usage de substances psychoactives en contextes festifs gais (OFDT). On voit dans ce contexte, comment la consommation de psychoactifs, par ses effets attendus sur les inhibitions sexuelles, “autorise” l’actualisation de fantasmes ou de pratiques contrevenant aux prescriptions sociales en matière de genre ou de sexualité, et permet de répondre à l’injonction de performance valorisée dans ce sous-groupe.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".