MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gouverner la vie privée

2019· book· fr· W2988416219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Émilie Biland

Bibliographic record

VenueENS Éditions eBooks · 2019
Typebook
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’implication de l’État dans la vie privée pose problème : les individus ont davantage de droits que par le passé, mais certains de leurs comportements, jugés problématiques pour la collectivité, justifient un interventionnisme renouvelé, dans lequel acteurs privés et mécanismes de marché occupent une place croissante. En tension entre libéralisme et normalisation, cette action publique participe aux recompositions des rapports sociaux, entre les classes sociales, entre les genres, ainsi qu’entre la population majoritaire et les personnes racisées. Objet de vifs débats et de réformes récurrentes, la régulation par le droit des séparations conjugales est un observatoire précieux de ces recompositions, ici analysées à partir de trois enquêtes collectives, qualitatives et quantitatives, menées des deux côtés de l’Atlantique. En France comme au Québec, l’accès aux procédures, les interactions avec les professionnel.les et l’encadrement des modes de vie sont les trois dimensions constitutives du gouvernement de la vie privée. Cependant, chacun des contextes n’articule pas de la même manière inégalités de classe et inégalités de genre. En scrutant la production institutionnelle des inégalités privées, cet ouvrage invite à imaginer des voies alternatives, dans la sphère privée comme dans la sphère publique, pour que la politique des droits tienne ses promesses émancipatrices.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.002

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations24
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueENS Éditions eBooksSame topicAging, Elder Care, and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207