La paradoxalité de la reconnaissance de l’expérience de coercition reproductive : une analyse qualitative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La coercition reproductive fait référence aux comportements de contrôle et de force infligés afin d'orienter la trajectoire reproductive des femmes. Les conséquences inhérentes sont multiples : grossesses inopportunes, recours accentué aux contraceptifs d’urgence et avortements, dépression.... Malgré ces effets importants, les femmes qui en sont victimes éprouvent souvent de la difficulté à reconnaitre leur expérience comme telle, ce qui contribue à limiter leur recherche de soutien. À travers la théorie du parcours de vie, cette analyse qualitative réalisée auprès de 13 femmes ayant vécu de la coercition reproductive présente comment la reconnaissance d'une telle expérience se déploie à l'intersection de diverses trajectoires de vie. Nos résultats suggèrent que le processus de reconnaissance est intrinsèquement paradoxal, et revêt un caractère à la fois subjectif, intersubjectif, sociohistorique et évolutif. Contrastant nos résultats avec la reconnaissance honnéthienne, des pistes critiques sont formulées en ce qui concerne notamment le déficit de ressources herméneutiques.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".