Les représentations des chasseuses dans des médias contemporains. Une analyse exploratoire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’implication des femmes dans la chasse fait l’objet de polémiques dans les médias contemporains. L’analyse qualitative d’articles de presse et de magazines parus entre 2013 et 2017, d’entrevues et de témoignages publiés sur l’expérience des chasseuses, et des commentaires du grand public permet d’explorer la diversité des représentations quant aux motivations sous-jacentes à l’activité cynégétique, les stratégies de chasse, les réactions face à la mort des animaux, le rapport à la nature et la protection de la faune. Le corpus met aussi en évidence les réactions contrastées et intenses du grand public quant à la participation des femmes à la chasse (propos sexistes à leur égard ou défense de leurs droits, questionnements sur leur santé mentale, enjeux éthiques, etc.), de même que les préjugés et stéréotypes soulevés dans ces discours qui rejoignent ceux rapportés à l’encontre des femmes s’engageant dans des métiers traditionnellement masculins.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".