Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les separations des couples quebecois fortunes constituent un observatoire des rapports au droit des classes dominantes. Dix cas ethnographiques, rassembles a partir d'entretiens et d'observations au tribunal et dans des cabinets d'avocat·e·s, et completes par une centaine de dossiers judiciaires, montrent le traitement judiciaire exceptionnel auquel ces couples ont acces en comparaison de ceux des autres milieux sociaux. Leurs capitaux et leurs styles de vie, ainsi que l'empathie et la competence technique des professionnel·le·s les aident a utiliser toutes les ressources du droit pour faire valoir leurs droits. Ces couples tres inegalitaires parviennent a jouer avec les rapports de genre de facon significative : les peres obtiennent plus souvent la garde des enfants, les epouses peuvent esperer voir leu investissement familial financierement reconnu. Les inegalites de genre demeurent cependant pregnantes, les femmes etant conduites a faire davantage de concessions que les hommes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.004 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".