Quelle conceptualisation de l’exploitation pour quelle critique intersectionnelle?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article s’appuie sur une recherche centrée sur les conditions de vie, de travail et de lutte des travailleuses domestiques philippines soumises au Programme canadien d’immigration intitulé « Programme des aides familiaux » (PAF) pour mettre en évidence l’insuffisance des critiques intersectionnelles et conceptions de l’émancipation qui – loin de repartir des acquis du féminisme matérialiste (des redéfinitions extensives du travail et de l’exploitation) – contournent le problème du travail « non libre », soit celui des modes d’exploitation irréductibles au capitalisme. En contrepoint, l’auteure défend l’actualité du féminisme matérialiste, de la théorisation de Colette Guillaumin en particulier, pour l’analyse desformes transitionnelles d’exploitation, telles qu’elles se (re)déploient dans le secteur de la domesticité. L’auteure soutient, finalement, l’hypothèse d’une recomposition du « sexage » qui participe pleinement de la dynamique par laquelle Sexe, Classe, Race se réorganisent aujourd’hui.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".