MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966315081 · doi:10.1093/fs/kns142

Parcours de femmes: Twenty Years of Women in French <i>Parcours de femmes: Twenty Years of Women in French</i> . Edited by M <scp>aggie</scp> A <scp>llison</scp> and A <scp>ngela</scp> K <scp>ershaw</scp> . (Modern French Identities, 73). Oxford: Peter Lang, 2011. 299 pp.

2012· article· en· W1966315081 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrench Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicFrench Historical and Cultural Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilestoneFrenchPoliticsHistoryOld FrenchBiographyArt historyHumanitiesSociologyArtLiteraturePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parcours de femmes is a collection of seventeen papers originating in the Tenth Biennial Women in French Conference held in Leeds in 2008. As the Preface sets out, it is a milestone publication marking twenty years of the Women in French network, and its contents represent both the journey of women in French Studies during the last two decades and the trajectories taken by contemporary women authors, filmmakers, artists, and politicians in France and the francophone world. The volume is divided into four discrete sections, with varying numbers of chapters; although this does not result in an entirely balanced weighting, the overall cohesion of the collection is not affected unduly. Each section begins with a brief introduction, which helps to situate the separate chapters within a broader intellectual framework; by referring successively back to previous sections, these introductions serve to emphasize the book's own trajectory. The chapters themselves range from useful analyses of the parcours of women's biography (Siân Reynolds) and two women's libraries (Caroline Verdier), to the appearance of women in the popular press (Jane Chapman) and in politics (Manda Green), to a sobering account of female homelessness in France (Estelle Soudant-Depelchin). The collection also offers close readings of literary texts (Imogen Long, Gabrielle Parker, Elise Hugueny-Léger, Nicole Thatcher, Dawn M. Cornelio, Jurate Kaminskas), overviews of women's writing in specific cultural contexts or at particular historical moments (Amaleena Damlé, Florence Tilch), or travelling beyond the borders of the French-speaking world (Joy Charnley, Angela Kershaw), as well as welcome interventions on women filmmakers (Michelle Royer) and on Ségolène Royal's 2007 presidential candidacy (Maggie Allison). The literature studied ranges from autobiography and the journal to travel writing and fiction, from France, Switzerland, Canada, North Africa, and Asia. This variety ensures that the contents of the book, which are slightly biased towards the literary, are still broad-ranging. Connections are drawn between several of the chapters: as well as its obvious links within the thematic sections of the book, the chapter on female homelessness resonates with sections of the chapters on women filmmakers and on women in the press; Charnley and Kershaw each consider Swiss travel writer Ella Maillart and her journeys to the Soviet Union; Allison's chapter on Ségolène Royal complements Green's work on the Assemblée Nationale. These connections, as well as the quality of the analysis in many of the individual chapters, are what constitute the collection's strength: rather than a series of disparate interventions, the volume can itself be read as a kind of parcours. Opening up notions of visibility, as well as women's trajectories through public space, geographical space, and literature, this book represents a milestone of more than just the twentieth anniversary of the highly (and deservedly) successful Women in French network; it also offers a snapshot of where women and women's issues stand in the French-speaking world at the end of the first decade of the new millennium.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it