Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article rend compte d'une recherche exploratoire sur le pouvoir et les stratégies d'influence dans trois groupes restreints naturels mixtes, menée au moyen d'un questionnaire permettant de déceler la structure du pouvoir et d'une grille d'observation originale. Les résultats sont les suivants. Les premiers rangs dans la structure du pouvoir sont occupés surtout par les hommes; au terme d'un long processus, il y a émergence de deux jeunes femmes comme leaders dans leurs groupes; un plus grand pouvoir d'expert est attribué aux hommes; peu de différences significatives apparaissent entre les stratégies utilisées par les femmes et par les hommes; enfin, il y a quasi-absence de liens entre pouvoir de référence et stratégies d'influence. Les résultats sont interprétés à partir d'un cadre théorique et épistémologique féministe et permettent de remettre en cause le modèle théorique du leadership complémentaire (instrumental et socio-émotif) de Bales.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".