Un feminicide colonial dans les Ameriques : perspectives comparees Mexique-Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette thèse effectue une analyse comparative des féminicides au Mexique et des disparitions et assassinats de femmes autochtones au Canada. À l’aide d’un cadre d’analyse mettant en avant-plan les voix et les connaissances « du bas », cette thèse rend compte des représentations moins entendues du féminicide et des meurtres et disparitions de femmes autochtones dans une perspective informée par la colonialité du pouvoir. À cet effet, les discours de proches de victimes de féminicide au Mexique ainsi que les discours de proches de femmes et de filles autochtones disparues et assassinées au Canada ont été analysés et comparés pour mettre au jour de nouvelles définitions de ces violences. Notre analyse des corpus montre que mieux comprendre les féminicides en contexte colonial demande de privilégier une perspective de la jetabilité et de la colonialité du pouvoir plutôt qu’une perspective de la vulnérabilité.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".