Scripts sexuels et pratiques affectives lesbiennes dans <i>The L Word</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’impact de la série lesbienne The L Word (2004-2009) a été retentissant dans la culture populaire et au sein des communautés lesbiennes en termes de reconnaissance et de visibilité. Près de quinze ans plus tard, il importe de porter un regard critique sur la série, du fait des transformations politiques du mouvement LGBTQ+ et de la place grandissante des perspectives queer. Cet article propose d’analyser les scripts sexuels et de genre qui sont véhiculés dans la série (principalement dans la saison 1) à la lumière du concept de pratiques affectives. La sexualité lesbienne dans The L Word est traversée par de multiples rapports de pouvoir entre les personnages féminins (inégalités de race, d’âge, de classe et d’expérience sexuelle). La prise en compte des affects dans les scripts sexuels et les archétypes lesbiens dans The L Word donne à voir une représentation hétérogène mais lesbonormative de la sexualité lesbienne.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".