MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767228437 · doi:10.7202/1041702ar

Les violences basées sur l’honneur au Canada et au Québec

2017· article· fr· W2767228437 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Estíbaliz Jiménez, Marie‐Marthe Cousineau, Ève-Marie Tanguay, Joelle Arcand

Bibliographic record

VenueCriminologie · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicHistorical and Scientific Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMinistère de l’Emploi et de la Solidarité Sociale (Québec)Université de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les violences basées sur l’honneur (VBH) incarnent une problématique peu visible, mal comprise et encore taboue. De plus, elles sont difficiles à aborder de peur de stigmatiser au passage certaines communautés issues de l’immigration. L’absence de consensus sur la définition ainsi que sur la terminologie à utiliser pour décrire la problématique soulève des questionnements sur la prévention et l’intervention en situation de VBH. En effet, dans ce contexte, les enjeux entourant l’intervention se complexifient non seulement pour identifier et soutenir les victimes, mais également pour dénoncer les agresseurs lorsqu’il s’agit de membres de la famille. L’« affaire Shafia », largement médiatisée, a particulièrement ébranlé les sociétés québécoise et canadienne et a déclenché une prise de conscience collective sur les mesures à mettre en place afin de prévenir les situations de VBH et de protéger les victimes de tels actes. Dans les années suivant l’affaire Shafia, des lois ont été adoptées autant au fédéral qu’au provincial afin de protéger les victimes des VBH. Il est encore trop tôt pour évaluer leur efficacité, mais déjà on peut constater que si, a priori, ces mesures législatives sont accueillies favorablement, elles méritent qu’on les examine ne serait-ce que pour envisager les effets, plus ou moins souhaités, qu’elles risquent d’entraîner.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
grokno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Theoretical or conceptualhigh
opusno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Theoretical or conceptualmedium
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.481
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.115 · 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

Labeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary · Review

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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCriminologieSame topicHistorical and Scientific StudiesFrench-language works237,207