La violence des femmes et des lesbiennes : analyses et enjeux politiques contemporains ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Travailler sur la violence dans les relations lesbiennes, c’est aussi s’interroger sur la violence des femmes dans ses enjeux sociaux et politiques. En effet, cette dernière est un phénomène qui suscite de plus en plus de débats, où différents discours, perspectives et théories analysent la réalité de façon diamétralement opposée (des analyses féministes aux plus antiféministes). Il apparaît important alors de discuter et de mesurer les enjeux de cette question tant sur le plan des politiques sociales, du service social et de la réalité sociale qu’en ce qui concerne la vision des rapports sociaux de sexe, car, à l’issue de ce débat, les analyses qui feront le poids auront des incidences, notamment sur les orientations et réorientations des politiques sociales en matière de violence conjugale. Ce texte propose ainsi de jeter un regard sur ces enjeux et les perspectives qui se dessinent et d’élaborer un cadre d’analyse du féminisme matérialiste et du lesbianisme politique pour rendre compte de la violence des lesbiennes dans un cadre domestique.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".