Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’objectif de cet article est de rendre compte du lent dévoilement du travail des agricultrices. Il s’agit plus précisément de comprendre pourquoi leur travail peut demeurer encore invisible, voir dénié et dans quelles situations il peut acquérir une visibilité. L’hypothèse que nous soutiendrons est que c’est surtout dans leurs manières d’accéder à leur métier et dans les manières de travailler qui découlent de son organisation dans leurs exploitations, que réside l’invisibilisation de leur travail comme sa mise en visibilité. Nous nous appuyons pour cela sur l’analyse du travail d’une trentaine d’agricultrices de Bretagne et d’Aquitaine. Nous examinons d’abord ce qui distingue les parcours professionnels de ces agricultrices. Nous analysons ensuite comment ces parcours se traduisent dans l’organisation de leur travail. Dès lors, nous nous interrogeons sur les implications identitaires de leurs manières de travailler.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".