MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063259274 · doi:10.7202/006385ar

Méthodologie féministe et anthropologie : une alliance possible

2003· article· fr· W2063259274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Huguette Dagenais

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropologie et Sociétés · 2003
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation, sociology, and vocational training
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAllianceHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Méthodologie féministe et anthropologie : une alliance possible Après un bref énoncé des principes épistémologiques et éthiques qui sous-tendent la recherche féministe et de la stratégie qui en découle dans la poursuite de projets concrets, l'auteure examine les affinités et apports réciproques entre anthropologie et méthodologie féministe puis souligne les contradictions profondes qui, selon elle, rendent problématique actuellement le développement de la recherche féministe en anthropologie. Elle termine en suggérant quelques pistes à suivre par les anthropologues féministes dans un proche avenir.

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)0.171
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.097
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.171
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1710.097
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0120.084
Scholarly communication0.0290.043
Open science0.0040.021
Research integrity0.0080.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.740
GPT teacher head0.695
Teacher spread0.044 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropologie et SociétésSame topicEducation, sociology, and vocational trainingFrench-language works237,207