Les couples non-mariés ont-ils des droits ? Comment juristes, intellectuels et journalistes ont construit l’affaire Éric c Lola
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Portant sur une affaire relative aux droits des couples non mariés qui agite le Québec depuis 2009, cet article compare son traitement par les tribunaux, l’expertise académique et la presse. S’inspirant du cadre d’analyse de la « forme affaire », il étudie le processus par lequel ce conflit privé hors-normes devient un problème public, mobilisant une rhétorique des droits, en l’occurrence celui des couples non mariés à être traités également aux couples mariés. Son analyse discute les travaux sur la « politique des droits », en interrogeant les conditions de succès des stratégies judiciaires pour la réduction des inégalités, dans un contexte où la mise à l’agenda échappe en large part aux mouvements sociaux, en particulier féministes. Les luttes définitionnelles entre les fractions des élites issues des trois espaces sociaux étudiés construisent de nouveaux cadres cognitifs et moraux d’appréhension des droits des conjoints de fait, rendant pensable le changement social.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".