MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908526279 · doi:10.7202/1055262ar

Le mariage en Chine depuis 1978 : entre les normes sociales et l’État

2019· article· fr· W2908526279 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hélène Piquet

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers de droit · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Le présent texte porte sur le mariage en Chine depuis 1978. Y seront traitées les questions suivantes : Quels enjeux le mariage soulève-t-il dans la société chinoise d’aujourd’hui ? Quel est le traitement juridique réservé à la violence conjugale ? L’hypothèse de l’auteure veut que le mariage en Chine soit dominé par deux traditions, soit la piété filiale et la valorisation de l’harmonie. Toutes deux sont réactivées par le Parti communiste chinois. Toutefois, si la société chinoise adhère, à divers degrés, à la piété filiale, l’harmonie tient davantage des représentations. L’auteure examinera les effets de ces deux traditions sur les conceptions du mariage chinois dans la société contemporaine. À cette fin, la première partie sera consacrée au contexte juridique et politique du mariage en Chine. La deuxième partie abordera l’influence de la piété filiale sur le mariage. Le traitement juridique de la violence conjugale, au regard de la rhétorique de l’harmonie, fera l’objet de la troisième partie.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.012
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers de droitSame topicMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFrench-language works237,207