MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993752815 · doi:10.7202/038493ar

Étude des stéréotypes sexistes à l’égard des parents dans la littérature jeunesse canadienne

2009· article· fr· W1993752815 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anne-Marie Dionne

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue de l’Université de Moncton · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Studies in Language
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En tant que produit culturel, la littérature jeunesse contribue à la formation des représentations des jeunes lecteurs à l’égard des rôles parentaux. Cependant, des études antérieures soutiennent qu’elle présente des stéréotypes sexistes à l’égard des genres. La présente étude vise à faire l’analyse d’un ensemble de livres jeunesse canadiens destinés aux jeunes francophones afin d’y déceler les stéréotypes sexistes à l’égard des parents. Une analyse de contenu a permis d’établir des comparaisons entre les mères et les pères mis en scène dans ces livres en tenant compte de leur représentativité, de leurs interactions avec leurs enfants et de l’expression de leurs sentiments. La composition familiale a également été prise en considération. Les résultats révèlent des distinctions entre les mères et les pères. Ces distinctions sont examinées en fonction des stéréotypes qui sont ainsi entretenus par la littérature jeunesse canadienne publiée en français.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.575

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue de l’Université de MonctonSame topicGender Studies in LanguageFrench-language works237,207