Difficultés liées à la négociation dans la recherche sur la famille: un regard sur l’organisation financière des couples suédois1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La négociation est devenue un aspect presque indissociable de la recherche sur les relations intimes. Dans le présent article, nous mettons en question la négociation en tant que concept efficace lorsqu’il s’agit de comprendre comment les couples organisent leur vie en commun, plus particulièrement la façon dont les couples suédois gèrent leurs finances. L’utilisation de la négociation tend à dissimuler certaines inégalités structurelles, puisque le quotidien est alors perçu comme le résultat d’une entente préétablie. Ceci nous porte à conceptualiser les relations de couple comme s’il n’y existait aucun rapport de pouvoir. Nous soutenons qu’un moyen plus efficace d’étudier l’organisation financière et la vie en commun des couples serait d’aborder ces sujets en tenant compte des rôles de genre dans la vie de tous les jours.
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 | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".