MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803540343 · doi:10.3917/nqf.371.0052

Vivre dans une communauté de religieuses. Des solidarités revisitées à l’aune de la vieillesse

2018· article· fr· W2803540343 on OpenAlexaff
Annick Anchisi, Laurent Amiotte-Suchet

Bibliographic record

VenueNouvelles Questions Féministes · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsCentre de Santé et de Services Sociaux de la Vieille-Capitale
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cet article se propose d’interroger les solidarités familiales à l’aune du vieillissement des congrégations religieuses féminines. Il est issu d’une enquête ethnographique sur la transformation de parties de couvents en maisons de retraite médicalisées gérées par un personnel laïc. Les résultats nous donnent l’occasion d’aborder les tensions qui prévalent entre l’autorité de l’Église et les figures fondatrices des congrégations ; entre les hiérarchies internes au couvent et les trajectoires hors norme des religieuses ; entre le profil de religieuse et celui de résidente âgée en maison de retraite. Pour chaque niveau, l’analyse permet de remettre en question les représentations, généralement défavorables, que l’on peut avoir des religieuses. C’est le cas aussi des professionnelles des soins en charge des résidentes, qui considèrent les engagements de ces dernières uniquement comme le résultat de diverses soumissions. Aussi, le savoir-faire et la réappropriation du pouvoir par les religieuses dans le but d’agir pour leur famille congrégationnelle ne sont pas compris comme pouvant servir de leviers aux causes féministes.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.418
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.353 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNouvelles Questions FéministesSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207