La perspective raciolinguistique comme outil de réflexion critique sur certains discours dominants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article développe une réflexion critique visant, d’une part, à accéder de manière plus intime à l’expérience du milieu minoritaire pour une personne racisée et minorisée, et, d’autre part, à examiner l’apport de la perspective raciolinguistique pour recadrer à la fois la signification et l’orientation des recherches en milieu minoritaire. Par une méthode de récit de résistance (counter-narrative), l’article propose deux voix : celle de l’autrice qui partage des extraits de ses carnets personnels et celle de la chercheuse qui, à travers la perspective raciolinguistique, ausculte certains discours dominants ayant mené au sentiment d’illégitimité de l’autrice. Dans le cadre de cette revue anniversaire, la réflexion livrée se veut porteuse de l’espoir d’un projet sociétal de pluralisation des savoirs pour un avenir serein, vitalisant et équitable pour tous.
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 | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".