Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article présente six cas de figure dans lesquels un homme est l’aidant d’un membre de sa famille en situation de handicap. Dans trois cas, il s’agit de sa conjointe, dans les autres cas, de l’un de ses enfants d’âge adulte. L’article cherche à comprendre comment ces hommes se sont trouvés dans cette position d’aidant, cinq fois sur six dans la position d’aidant principal, et s’il existe un mode masculin des pratiques d’aide. Les cas ont été choisis parmi trente-sept cas étudiés lors des post-enquêtes Histoire de Vie – Construction identitaire (INSEE, 2003) et Handicap Santé Ménage – Handicap Santé Aidants (INSEE, 2008). Les études de cas ont constitué le volet qualitatif d’une étude générale concernant l’aide au masculin comprenant un volet quantitatif (Banens & Marcellini, 2015). Les résultats suggèrent que le handicap a tendance à réactiver un modèle traditionnel de genre, impliquant une plus forte interdépendance intrafamiliale. Les hommes aidants semblent consentir à cette interdépendance accrue, qu’ils investissent dans le rôle du protecteur plutôt que de l’infirmier.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".