MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121901182 · doi:10.7202/1030995ar

Les techniques de reproduction et l’éviction du corps féminin

2015· article· fr· W2121901182 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maria De Koninck

Bibliographic record

VenueRecherches féministes · 2015
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Policies and Family
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesReproductionPolitical scienceArtBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La reproduction humaine est au coeur des rapports sociaux de sexe. Des luttes féministes ont permis aux femmes d’acquérir une plus grande autonomie reproductive certes, mais cela est devenu possible grâce à un recours à la technique. Or, la récente évolution des techniques dans le domaine de la reproduction se caractérise par la croissance d’un pouvoir externe et par une atteinte au caractère global de l’expérience des femmes. Cette évolution s’appuie sur une dévalorisation du potentiel reproducteur féminin et crée une illusion d’émancipation. L’article soulève des questions sur les valeurs qui la sous-tendent et son impact sur les rapports sociaux de sexe.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.021
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.220
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRecherches féministesSame topicSocial Policies and FamilyFrench-language works237,207