MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970008879 · doi:10.7202/015673ar

La réorganisation de la parenté aux États-Unis après le divorce et le remariage

2003· article· fr· W1970008879 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Colleen L. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé La réorganisation de la parenté aux États-Unis après le divorce et le remariage Cet article s'intéresse aux processus de réorganisation de la parenté à la suite du divorce et du remariage. À partir de listes électorales publiques, cinquante divorces ont été sélectionnés dans les faubourgs de classe moyenne de la Californie du Nord. Nous avons contacté les familles une fois le divorce achevé ; les parents qui divorçaient et leurs propres parents furent interrogés plusieurs fois pendant une période de quatre ans. Quatre cadres théoriques et empiriques issus de l'anthropologie permettent d'analyser les résultats : 1) l'analyse sémiotique et culturelle des définitions et des significations des relations avec des personnes apparentées acquises ou perdues au fil des divorces et des remariages ; 2) une analyse structurale de la dualité des oppositions qui produisent des clivages et des coalitions entre parents par alliance au fil du processus; 3) la nature et les racines culturelles des rôles parentaux qui ont eu pour résultat le rôle périphérique des pères et 4) les processus rituels qui fonctionnent comme mécanismes réducteurs de tensions quand des anciens parents par alliance doivent se rencontrer. Mots clés : Johnson, divorce, remariage, réorganisation de la parenté, États-Unis

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.343
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologie et SociétésSame topicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, GenderFrench-language works237,207