Indisciplinées mais savantes : sur la possibilité des femmes en philosophie et en théorie critique1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’auteure interroge le statut suspect et précaire de la « femme philosophe ». À travers la mise en écho de récits de philosophes et de théoriciennes identifiées comme femmes et queers, dans lesquels elles confient leur expérience personnelle de formation et de travail dans le milieu universitaire, l’auteure entend rendre compte des conditions de possibilités d’« être » une femme en philosophie et en théorie critique. Il apparaît que les questions identitaires sexuelles et raciales déterminent la place que ces théoriciennes occupent dans l’institution et constituent les cadres épistémologiques de leur travail et leur pensée en tant que philosophes et intellectuelles. Dès lors, il importe de repenser la discipline philosophique à travers les paradigmes de féminisation et de sexualisation afin d’imaginer de nouvelles épistémologies féministes.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".