Réception sociologique des travaux de Colette Guillaumin en France : une lente appropriation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose d’explorer la manière dont les travaux de Colette Guillaumin ont été reçus et lus en France par ses collègues sociologues, entre les années 1970 et aujourd’hui. Leur réception semble d’abord faible, entravée par un puissant nationalisme méthodologique qui imprègne alors les sciences sociales françaises. Ses apports théoriques sont néanmoins partagés dans quelques cercles dont nous éclairerons les acteurs et leurs débats. Cette réception apparaît à la fois lente, fragmentée, et divisée entre des chercheur.e.s en relations interethniques pour qui le racisme n’en constitue qu’une dimension, d’une part, et d’autre part des chercheur.e.s investi.e.s dans la création du champ des études féministes. Ce n’est qu’au cours des années 2000 que ses outils conceptuels ont commencé à circuler plus largement, sous diverses formes, visant souvent l’articulation des rapports sociaux de sexe, de classe et de race.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".