Bibliographic record
Abstract
Il s’agit dans cet article de soumettre à la critique, à la fois théorique et empirique, le modèle de la « relation pure », proposé par Giddens comme forme idéale de la vie à deux dans les sociétés modernes avancées. Ce modèle sous-estime nettement le besoin de sécurité ontologique des individus, même les plus « individualisés ». La fragilité de ces derniers réclame certaines conditions, et notamment des preuves de reconnaissance de soi qui s’inscrivent dans la demande — qui reste très forte — de fidélité, ou encore de temps passé ensemble. Une enquête par questionnaire passé auprès de membres de couples de la région parisienne et d’un certain niveau scolaire permet de montrer la force des compromis entre la « pureté » des libertés individuelles au sein de la vie conjugale et les contraintes de la reconnaissance de chacun des deux partenaires. La vie commune n’a donc pas nécessairement comme avenir « la relation pure ».
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 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".