MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2779932882 · doi:10.4000/socio.2900

Défaire et refaire le sexe, le genre, la sexualité

2017· article· fr· W2779932882 on OpenAlexaff
Elaine Coburn

Bibliographic record

VenueSocio · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsMusée de la Civilisation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceSociologyGender studiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La matrice sexe/genre/sexualité structure les relations au quotidien, mais également les savoirs, y compris au sein de l’université. Bien que contestée, cette matrice incarne cependant le « sens commun » : l’idée qu’il n’y a que deux sexes, que seules l’hétérosexualité et éventuellement certaines formes d’homosexualité sont possibles, et que le genre est distinct du sexe mais, comme lui, stable depuis la naissance. Cette matrice disciplinaire et normalisatrice façonne nos droits et nos institutions formelles politiques, les médias et la culture populaire, nos vies quotidiennes et les luttes politiques. Mais elle est remise en cause par des sujets politiques nouveaux – les personnes intersexes, trans et queer. Ces sujets émergent de ce qu’étaient des catégories médicales diagnostiques pathologisantes. Leur existence en tant qu’intellectuels, activistes, et non comme anormaux, fous, criminels, a été douloureusement acquise. Désormais, ils nous offrent des analyses sociales vitales des expériences humaines quotidiennes, surdéterminées mais jamais réductibles aux normes binaires du sexe et du genre ; d’une manière inévitablement partielle, fragmentée, parfois contradictoire, ils nous aident à imaginer des relations sociales au-delà des pratiques et des normes, souvent étroites, du présent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.004

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.387 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocioSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207