Contemporary families and digital practices : which adjustments for which norms ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework :Sociological knowledge about the link between digital practices and family life still needs developing. It is within this context, this journal issue and introductory article explore how marital negotiations and parent-child relationships are being transformed by these digital practices, forms of surveillance mediated by these technologies or, conversely, new ways in which autonomy is attained, the balance between peer and familial socialisation, as well as the connection between gender roles and the ways in which these technologies are used by couples and families. Objectives :This introductory article is designed to present the current state of research on these topics and critically examine the corpus of articles included in this issue. Methodology :Through a review of the literature, we situate this special issue within a broader context of research that, for nearly twenty years, at the intersection of work on the family and work on communication technologies and the internet. Results :In the first section, we suggest that this field of research is yet to be developed. In the following sections, we will show how the articles in this themed issue largely demonstrate that family digital practices reflect current social norms, as well as the tensions these norms may create. Although this analysis is not new (Pasquier, 2018), it is refined by the multiplicity of actors, discourses, and methodologies. Conclusions :As a result of the evaluation and selection of the articles, this themed issue is intended to give a voice to sociologists influenced by a relationist approach and a constructivist language. These articles deal with intimacy and fall within the framework of the sociology of everyday life, taking a close look at ordinary practices. Technologicaly deterministic analyses (Jauréguilberry and Proulx, 2011) are therefore less present. Scholars interested in these topics will find that much remains to be done, and the constant evolution of these practices and technologies ensures that there will always be new questions to address. Contribution :This themed issue contributes to the dialogue between various sociological studies of the individual and his or her relationship to norms, where some believe that the norms govern the individual (structuralism), while others believe that the individual negotiate and co-creates the norms regulating these 'good practices' (pragmatism, interactionism). Moreover, this introductory article will provide a short but necessary survey of French-language sociological knowledge about families in the digital era – a way to remind ourselves and our readers of the Foucauldian idea that scientific works about a research topic are not neutral.
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 | 0.025 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".