(In)habitée par le cancer : récits critiques des trajectoires affectives d’un terrain miné d’émotions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose d’aborder la place des affects dans le travail ethnographique, et plus particulièrement dans l’écriture. Inspirée par la critique habitée d’Ashcraft (2017) je trace les trajectoires affectives qui m’ont traversée lors de la réalisation de deux terrains de recherche auprès d’un organisme de lutte contre le cancer. À travers le récit de mon parcours en tant qu’ethnographe, bénévole et aussi proche aidante, je découvre la manière dont j’ai été (in)habitée par le cancer. Le regard réflexif et critique posé sur l’expérience de ces terrains minés d’émotions montre comment le cancer, ici constitué comme objet de critique, se déplace à travers des agencements multidirectionnels et hybrides. Les récits de critique habitée suggèrent un mode d’enquête et d’écriture où la chercheuse ou le chercheur se laisse guider par les affects comme point de départ de la réflexivité.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".