Appréhender l’invisible : réflexions sur un dispositif méthodologique élaboré pour l’analyse du travail domestique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le travail domestique et la théorisation de son exploitation constituent des enjeux fondamentaux de la critique féministe. Par ailleurs, les efforts pour appréhender de façon empirique le travail domestique se butent à plusieurs obstacles politiques, théoriques et méthodologiques. Cet article présente un dispositif méthodologique original qui a été élaboré pour analyser le travail domestique effectué par des mères et des pères auprès de leur enfant présentant un trouble dans le spectre de l’autisme. L’analyse d’une première application de ce dispositif méthodologique montre comment, en comparaison des outils généralement utilisés, il permet une meilleure documentation de certains aspects de ce travail et une mise en évidence stratégique de l’inégalité vécue à cet égard par les participantes.
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 | 0.125 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| 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".