MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119247170 · doi:10.7202/018314ar

Les hommes proféministes : compagnons de route ou faux amis1?

2008· article· fr· W2119247170 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Francis Dupuis‐Déri

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches féministes · 2008
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’objectif de l’auteur est de réfléchir à la position politique paradoxale et problématique qu’occupe l’homme proféministe dans son rapport aux femmes en général et aux féministes en particulier. Après avoir rappelé très brièvement quelques problèmes associés à l’engagement malheureux d’hommes proféministes à la fin du XIX e siècle et au XX e siècle, l’auteur montrera, dans une perspective féministe radicale matérialiste (Christine Delphy), que les hommes, même les mieux intentionnés, sont toujours privilégiés en tant que mâle. Il proposera conséquemment que les hommes proféministes s’engagent dans un processus de disempowerment . En reprenant la distinction entre le « pouvoir sur » (pouvoir de domination) et le « pouvoir de » (pouvoir d’agir), l’auteur clarifiera ce qu’il entend par disempowerment , soit un processus par lequel des hommes devraient travailler individuellement et collectivement à limiter le pouvoir qu’ils exercent sur les femmes et les féministes. Il rappellera enfin que, malgré leurs bonnes intentions, l’engagement des hommes proféministes recèle toujours un potentiel problématique pour des féministes et que c’est le rapport de force créé et entretenu par des féministes qui pousse des hommes à se dire proféministes et qui limite les effets négatifs de leur engagement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.306
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.087 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches féministesSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207