Le discours sur la violence sexuelle en milieu universitaire francophone : le cas de l’Université de Moncton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article a pour objectif d’analyser le contenu idéologique du discours sur la violence sexuelle en milieu universitaire francophone en examinant comment les notions de culture du viol et de culture du consentement sont utilisées pour définir ce qu’est la violence à caractère sexuel. Nous adopterons une approche qualitative et féministe de l’analyse du discours (Cameron, 2007 ; Fairclough et Wodak, 1997 ; Ehrlich et King, 1994) afin de faire valoir comment les idéologies de genre se déploient dans la production discursive en milieu universitaire. Cette analyse se basera sur un corpus de discours produits et mis en circulation entre 2015 et 2019. Nous montrerons que l’émergence d’un discours sur la violence à caractère sexuel à l’Université de Moncton permet tantôt de reproduire les stéréotypes de genre associés aux femmes en Acadie, tantôt d’y résister.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".