MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066276196 · doi:10.3917/cdge.hs01.0095

L'élaboration des politiques d'égalité ou les incertitudes du féminisme d'État : une comparaison France / Canada

2006· article· fr· W2066276196 on OpenAlex
Sandrine Dauphin

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers du Genre · 2006
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Résumé Cet article compare le féminisme d’État en France et au Canada à travers l’étude des institutions en charge des politiques d’égalité entre les hommes et les femmes. Il entend montrer qu’au-delà des différences culturelles et sociales entre ces deux pays dans la conception et la promotion même de l’égalité, un processus de normalisation s’est mis en place. Celui-ci conduit à faire de ces institutions traditionnellement « satellites » au sein de l’administration publique, parce que vouées par leurs missions à être temporaires, des administrations assimilées dans l’appareil d’État. Les politiques d’égalité sont désormais structurées autour de l’égalité des chances et de l’utilisation prioritaire d’une approche intégrée de l’égalité (ou gender mainstreaming ). Elles conduisent à produire des normes d’égalité où les femmes et les hommes sont envisagés comme deux groupes distincts et homogènes, et ne tenant pas compte des rapports sociaux de sexe.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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