Aux racines d’une exclusion féminine si « naturelle » : la chronique jazz, un univers très « masculin »
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le « monde » des chroniqueurs de jazz est, en France, un monde d’hommes. Non seulement les femmes sont rares, en proportion, à signer des articles ou à réaliser des émissions de radio portant sur le jazz (moins de 10 %), mais les femmes présentes y occupent des positions marginalisées. Comment expliquer que la chronique jazz reste un univers si fermé aux femmes malgré les efforts contraires mis en oeuvre par les hommes chroniqueurs de jazz ? Cet article vise à éclairer aussi bien la faible présence et la position marginalisée des femmes dans cette activité que les manières dont certaines réussissent « quand même » à exercer l’activité de chroniqueuse de jazz. À travers ce cas exceptionnel – par sa petite taille et par la force de la marginalisation des femmes – apparaissent ainsi de manière exacerbée les processus sociaux transversaux de marginalisation et de transgression des femmes dans des univers très « masculins » – professionnels, sportifs, culturels, artistiques ou militants.
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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".