Risk, Control and Gender: Reconciling Production and Reproduction in the Risk Society
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the risk society, managing health risks underlines a social tension between a logic of rationalization and a logic of subjectivation. In the former, techno-scientific thought dominates and induces a certain form of dependence on scientific experts while, in the latter, the individuals tend to be seen to make independent choices to protect their health. This article examines the logics of the actors in the risk management process from a constructivist perspective. According to Dubet's sociology of experience, social experience is structured around three logics: the logic of integration, i.e. the social world seen through the membership group, role and social relations; the strategic logic, i.e. the social world seen as a market; and the logic of subjectivation, i.e. the ability to be a subject, to distance oneself from the surrounding world and to give meaning to one's actions and decisions. Our qualitative research involved the analysis of the discourse of workers and employers in relation to the risk for pregnancy of work activities. The study was conducted in Quebec (Canada), where employers are legally obliged to protect the health of pregnant workers and the latter have the right to safe working conditions without prejudice. The results show that scientific experts do not have a determining impact on organizational changes and the representations of risk held by employers and women workers. Scientific controversies about work risks for pregnancy are used by employers to maintain the status quo while, for workers, the climate of employment and economic insecurity plays a significant role in how they deal with work-related health risks. Based on the theory of the risk society, the results bring out the complex interplay between scientific rationality and social rationality whereby risk is defined according to the interests of the actors involved. But, not consistent with certain tenets of the risk society thesis, they also reveal one's ability to be critical of institutionalized risk.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".