MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024402087 · doi:10.4000/amnis.583

Femmes, militance et vieillissement

2008· article· fr· W2024402087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michèle Charpentier, Anne Quéniart, Julie Jacques

Bibliographic record

VenueAmnis · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePublicsSociologyPhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article se propose d’aborder la question de la militance chez les femmes aînées à partir des résultats d’une recherche qualitative menée au Québec, Canada, sur trois ans (2005-2008). Alors que les aînées d’aujourd’hui appartiennent à une génération de femmes qui ont ouvert de multiples portes et ont investi de nouveaux espaces publics, on s’est peu intéressé à leurs pratiques et au sens de leurs engagements après 65 ans. Après avoir introduit la question de la participation sociale et citoyenne des personnes âgées en général, et plus particulièrement des femmes âgées, les auteures mettent en évidence les principales caractéristiques de leurs engagements militants et de leurs conceptions du monde ; un monde qu’elles rêvent encore de changer. Une attention particulière est portée à la perception qu’ont les aînées des différences liées au genre et à la génération. En effet, bien que la plupart d’entre elles ne se définissent pas comme étant des retraitées ni des féministes, elles considèrent que leurs formes et leurs pratiques de militance se distinguent de celles des jeunes militantes et de leurs homologues masculins.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmnisSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207