Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse l’impact de l’opacité entourant l’action policière sur les mobilisations qui dénoncent les violences et discriminations policières en France. Sur la base d’une enquête qualitative de trois mobilisations contemporaines, l’article montre que les militants perçoivent l’opacité policière comme un obstacle important à l’élaboration de mobilisations, et qu’ils investissent dans la production de connaissances pour corroborer leurs dénonciations. De nombreux travaux sociologiques ont démontré que les mouvements sociaux participent à la production de connaissances, mais peu ont examiné la manière dont la production de connaissances influence à son tour la définition des causes militantes. En comparant différents modes de production des connaissances, l’enquête révèle que, selon la méthodologie de collecte des données, le matériau empirique collecté et le prisme d’analyse adopté, ceux-ci mettent en évidence différents aspects des pratiques policières, et contribuent ainsi à consolider certains cadrages du problème au détriment d’autres.
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".