Prévention et communication contre les violences faites aux femmes. Réception et influences de la stratégie créative du détournement du genre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude s’intéresse à la réception de dispositifs communicationnels contre les violences sexistes, issus de la société civile et mobilisant le détournement du genre (DDG : stratégie créative perturbant les rapports genrés). Elle vise à mieux comprendre la réception et les influences de ces dispositifs, envisagés comme interactions humaines et sociales médiatisées, à travers une méthodologie mixte et triangulée (focus group et protocole de mesure des attitudes « avant-après »). Les résultats montrent, qu’en réception, (1) les violences sont envisagées de manière collective; l’éducation prime pour lutter contre celles-ci, quand la loi ou le féminisme contemporain constituent notamment des résistances au changement. Les personnages et l’ancrage des violences dans la réalité agissent comme marqueurs forts du DDG. (2) En outre, le DDG provoque un inconfort psychologique mais peu d’empathie virtuelle. Enfin, nous montrons que (3) le DDG diminue significativement des attitudes de sexisme hostile et bienveillant.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".