MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750658725 · doi:10.7202/1065099ar

FÉMINISME ET WOMEN'S STUDIES. VIEILLES HISTOIRES

2019· article· fr· W2750658725 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rachel Bowlby

Bibliographic record

VenueSurfaces · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Gender and Feminism Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtEthnologyFeminismPhilosophySociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’auteure tente une reconstruction de l’histoire des women’s studies et de la dynamique qui les relie au féminisme. Évoquant les diverses polarités qui ont structuré les conditions de leur interaction, elle décrit l’évolution du féminisme anglo-américain, du féminisme français et du French feminism en faisant intervenir les notions de marginalité et d’institutionnalisation, les théories de Kristeva, de Cixous et d’Irigaray, la déconstruction et l’« essentialism » et, dans une visée plus polémique, la « domestication ». Pour illustrer la thèse que les enjeux du débat entourant le rôle des women’s studies au sein du féminisme n’ont pas changé, Bowlby offre une critique déconstructrice du récent livre de Judith Butler, Gender Trouble.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurfacesSame topicHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesFrench-language works237,207