Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pour de nombreux chercheurs et chercheuses en éducation des adultes, il est important de bien comprendre l’histoire de ce champ pour mieux envisager son avenir. Comme dans bien d’autres domaines, le rôle joué par les femmes n’est pas toujours mis de l’avant. Avec le temps, il s’avère de plus en plus difficile de raconter une histoire qui inclut la contribution des femmes parce que peu d’archives écrites témoignent de leur agentivité. Cette recherche a fait appel à la méthodologie de l’histoire orale afin de recueillir les récits de quatre femmes contributrices à l’éducation des adultes. À travers l’analyse et l’interprétation de leur parcours, nous pouvons faire ressortir les thèmes suivants : les alliances entre l’éducation des adultes et le mouvement des femmes; l’aspect collectif des contributions racontées qui mènent à des transformations sociales; et le potentiel pédagogique que comportent la cueillette, l’interprétation et la diffusion des histoires orales de personnes à risque d’être invisibilisées de l’histoire.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".