Enfants, enfance(s) et agentivité : un champ historique en transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article aborde une des questions centrales ayant animé le champ de l’histoire des enfants dans les dernières années : comment aller au-delà du paradigme de l’agentivité dans l’interprétation des traces laissées par les enfants? Quels schèmes interprétatifs sont proposés pour le remplacer? Avant d’aborder cet enjeu ainsi que les défis archivistiques et méthodologiques qui lui sont inhérents, nous proposons un tour d’horizon du champ de l’histoire des enfants. L’objectif est de proposer à un lectorat francophone non initié un aperçu de certaines des réflexions épistémologiques qui animent cette branche de la discipline historique. Explorant à la fois des thématiques comme le rapport entre voix, expérience, émotion et agentivité, le processus de construction du récit de l’enfance par les archives et les bienfaits de perspectives transnationales, ce texte se veut un plaidoyer pour un renouvellement de l’histoire des enfants dans le monde francophone.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".