Bibliographic record
Abstract
La dichotomie entre les relations intimes et les relations impersonnelles s’inscrit dans une tradition de longue date. Pour échapper à cette dichotomie, l’article propose une approche fondée sur la prise en considération descircuitsinterpersonnels. Pour en illustrer la portée, quatre domaines sont étudiés : 1) les circuits organisationnels ; 2) les monnaies locales ; 3) les soins personnels rétribués et 4) la participation des enfants à l’économie familiale. L’auteure en conclut que les transactions, tant intimes qu’impersonnelles, passent souvent par des circuits que les participants délimitent entre eux par le biais de pratiques, d’ententes et de symboles bien ancrés qui diffèrent quelque peu d’un circuit à l’autre. Loin de déterminer la nature des relations interpersonnelles, les instruments d’échange (y compris la monnaie légale) incorporés dans ces circuits prennent des connotations particulières selon les ententes, les pratiques et les symboles qui font partie intégrante de ces circuits. Tels sont les moyens dont on se sert pour franchir le fossé apparemment infranchissable entre la solidarité sociale et les transactions monétisées. Ils constituent le point d’intersection entre l’argent et l’intimité.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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.
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".