Femmes et héroïne : bilan des connaissances, limites et perspectives nouvelles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article gives the results of the consultation of several bases of bibliographical data on Women and Heroin, using the Boolean type of research. Various subjects are discussed, the extent of its use, the characteristics and factors of involvement in drug dependency, treatment, Mother/children relationship, Aids and prostitution. In the light of this survey of the literature, it seemed necessary to question the actual pertinence of these studies. They pose a number of important problems. Our criticism of the quality of these studies are I) problems of method and sampling; 2) epistemological problems and 3) the “monodisciplinarity” of these studies. In these works, the norm or “normality” (of drug addiction) is proper to the male sex. Women are considered marginal to this norm. Other fundamental omissions are mentioned, especially the relativity of the norms, problems connected with the concepts and the terms used. With regard to these various criticisms, we propose two models of analysis. The first refers to the study of women heroin-users as a group rather than in regard to men. The second is to construct a more general plan of analysis ofmarginality, of deviance and the criminality of women using the theories of social reaction in criminology and of radical materialist feminism. These two models could be complementary.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
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".