Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les insultes homophobes portent dans leurs connotations des significations explicitement negatives. Mais si celles-ci ne sont pas toujours lues comme telles, alors l’homophobie, qui n’est theoriquement (ou juridiquement) pas toleree socialement, ne peut alors etre contree. Comment le signe annihile-t-il cette lecture tout en produisant un effet d’oppression sur l’entourage ? Ce qui est en jeu, c’est ce qui arrive ou pas a entrer dans la definition d’homophobie et comment cela confere un pouvoir au langage. En nous basant sur les propos de Bastien-Charlebois, nous proposons dans un premier temps de voir les possibilites d’analyse permises par le concept d’homophobie. Dans un deuxieme temps, nous regarderons le fonctionnement de la langue a partir d’une situation ou l’interpretation a echoue a identifier le caractere negatif des propos. Nous en tirerons finalement des conclusions sur le pouvoir des mots et le sens a donner a ces differentes interpretations a partir de des travaux de Barthes sur le mythe et de Butler sur la performativite.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".