Bibliographic record
Abstract
L'auteure propose dans son article de considérer L'assujettissement des femmes, de John Stuart Mill, en tant qu'oeuvre philosophique qui illustre la mise en application des méthodes et des principes exposés dans son ouvrage le plus important et le plus célèbre : Le système de logique. En examinant le problème de l'assujettissement économique, politique et moral des femmes, Mill dévoile les liens existant entre la théorie et la pratique, entre la logique de la science et la logique de l'art, de même qu'entre la description des mauvaises conditions de vie des femmes et l'évaluation morale qui nous indique la voie à suivre pour les changer. Malgré l'amélioration relative de la condition des femmes depuis l'époque de Mill, L'assujettissement des femmes demeure un ouvrage actuel et un écrit philosophique classique où l'auteur traite le problème de l'inégalité des sexes avec sincérité et une grande foi dans la raison pour l'éducation de nos sentiments et de nos idées.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".