À l’assaut du plafond de verre : journalisme et militantisme adaptatif chez les étudiantes au Québec (1956-1969)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Confrontées au plafond de verre dont l’existence se faisait sentir quotidiennement à l’université tout autant dans l’horizon scolaire et professionnel et la politique étudiante que dans les discours normatifs et prescriptifs genrés et sexistes, nombre d’étudiantes ont remis en question ces discours dans les années 1950 et 1960. Sans nécessairement dénoncer les structures globales d’oppression vécues par les femmes à l’université, elles ont plutôt pratiqué un militantisme adaptatif qui leur a permis de promouvoir les compétences des étudiantes. Le présent article traite de deux pratiques qui tendaient alors à définir le milieu étudiant à l’Université de Montréal : la politique associative et le journalisme. Malgré leur politisation, les étudiantes n’ont pas eu accès aux mêmes leviers de visibilité et de promotion que leurs pendants masculins. C’est donc largement à l’écart de l’association étudiante qu’elles ont dû s’investir, particulièrement dans le journal étudiant, où elles ont eu accès à une tribune privilégiée pour se faire entendre et occuper des postes clés. Abstract: Faced with a glass ceiling at university that was experienced daily in the educational and professional options open to them, in student politics, and in the normative and prescriptive discourse they heard concerning their gender and roles, many female students called this discourse into question in the 1950s and 1960s. Without necessarily denouncing the overall structures of oppression affecting women at university, they practiced an adaptive activism that allowed them to promote female students’ competencies. This article discusses two fields that tended to define student life at the University of Montreal during this period, namely politics and journalism. Despite their political involvement, female students lacked access to the same visibility and promotional levers available to their male counterparts. This forced them to channel most of their efforts outside the student association, especially into the student newspaper, which was an important platform for them to be heard and to hold key positions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".