Récits et subjectivations politiques intersectionnelles transversales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’intéresse à la construction contingente de subjectivations politiques situées à l’intersection de diverses formes de domination ainsi que de diverses pratiques sociales émancipatrices. Cherchant à dépasser une aporie constitutive du champ de l’intersectionnalité oscillant entresujetetstructure, le texte cherche à aborder despositions de sujetgénéralement « invisibilisées », sans les « déduire » directement des structures de la domination, mais aussi sans les individualiser ou les diluer dans un cumul désordonné de particularismes. En se basant sur un corpus de récits d’actions directes spontanées ayant eu lieu en Amérique latine au cours des deux dernières décennies, l’article cherche à montrer comment ces actions contestataires transgressives sont porteuses desubjectivations politiques intersectionnelles transversalespermettant la convergence stratégique de positions divergentes ainsi que l’expression publique de positions invisibles et inaudibles jusqu’alors. L’analyse de ces positions permet non seulement de mieux comprendre les actions collectives et les motivations de leurs participants, mais également d’entreprendre, à partir de cette perspective épistémologique de la marge, une analyse intersectionnelle des structures de la domination.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".