Les enjeux de la survisibilisation/invisibilisation de la violence en contexte familial envers les femmes issues de l’immigration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans cet article, nous proposons d’interroger la visibilité sociale – et son envers, l’invisibilité – dans la manière dont est traitée la violence en contexte familial « occidental » et « non occidental » dans les médias, en vue de réfléchir à leurs effets potentiels en termes d’intervention auprès des femmes et des filles issues de l’immigration. À partir d’une analyse critique de 95 articles du Globe and Mail, du National Post et du Toronto Star, nous montrons que les populations immigrantes font l’objet d’un excès de visibilité dans les journaux lorsqu’il est question de violence envers les femmes en contexte familial et que cet excès de visibilité a pour effet paradoxal d’invisibiliser socialement celles-là mêmes auxquelles on souhaite venir en aide. Trois conséquences potentiellement nuisibles de ce double processus de survisibilisation/invisibilisation sont discutées, avant de conclure sur des pistes de recherche et d’intervention.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".