Position sociale, point de vue et connaissance sociologique : rapports sociaux de sexe et connaissance de ces rapports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article porte sur la genèse des problématiques de sexe dans les sciences sociales et propose une contribution à l’élucidation des rapports entre connaissance, point de vue et position de l’observateur. Le problème est envisagé dans sa généralité, mais il s’agit aussi de le poser dans le champ d’études des rapports de sexe : comment la position au sein du système hiérarchique du sexe/genre peut-elle avoir une incidence sur l’interprétation de ce système ? Le problème est envisagé sous différents angles : historique, épistémologique, théorique. Un exemple est sollicité : la controverse autour de l’explication de la reproduction de la domination et du « consentement à la domination », opposant la théorie de Godelier à la critique de Mathieu. La conclusion milite pour une plus grande prise au sérieux de la question de la position de l’observateur, dans un contexte de querelle rationalisme/relativisme apaisée.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".