Bibliographic record
Abstract
Puis l’étude de Jean-Pierre Pichette scrute les enquêtes ponctuelles sur les tabous sexuels et naturels qu’il a commandées à ses étudiants de Sudbury au début des années 1980. En préambule, il rappelle l’atmosphère étouffante qui enveloppait le domaine de l’intime en milieu catholique canadien-français et qui favorisa la création d’un langage fleuri et crypté pour l’exprimer. Ouvrant alors ce « cabinet secret du folklore », il dépouille et analyse le millier d’occurrences que ces sondages ont générées pour remplacer une quinzaine d’interdits désignant les parties de l’appareil reproducteur des corps masculin et féminin. À côté des termes crus, grossiers ou vulgaires, l’auteur relève de nombreuses métaphores très originales qui parviennent à nommer l’innommable par des doubles sens destinés à ne pas offenser l’innocence des enfants, voire des adolescents. Autant que l’ignorance du mot juste, cet exposé montre que l’amour des mots explique aussi la persistance de ce langage codé dans le monde contemporain.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
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".