Bibliographic record
Abstract
Un incident survenu pendant une étude en santé et en sécurité du travail a suscité une réflexion sur la relation entre la chercheuse féministe et les travailleuses étudiées. La chercheuse a étudié l'activité de travail des femmes qui lavent les toilettes dans les trains français. Afin de rendre compte du caractère pénible de ce travail, elle a voulu prendre des photographies du travail. Certaines femmes se sont opposées au fait d'être photographiées pendant le nettoyage. Malgré une hypothèse voulant que l'appartenance au même sexe puisse aider à rétablissement d'une collaboration entre chercheuses et travailleuses, la différence de classe sociale peut constituer un obstacle à cette collaboration. Les conditions de travail des chercheuses peuvent renforcer les effets de leur appartenance de classe et entraver la recherche féministe en santé et en sécurité du travail. Des solutions sont proposées impliquant des changements dans le système de subventions de recherche.
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".