Bibliographic record
Abstract
À partir d’une recherche doctorale portant sur les stratégies de communication et pratiques militantes féministes en France au début du XXIe siècle, le présent article propose d’interroger la manière dont les réflexions autour de la présentation de soi dans un espace conflictuel participe à construire l’objet de recherche et, plus largement, l’enquête scientifique elle-même. En quoi consiste cette négociation plurielle ? Comment en rendre compte ? Comment traverse-t-elle les différents moments de l’enquête ethnographique ? Qu’implique cette négociation plurielle pour la construction de la recherche, pour la relation d’enquête et, plus largement, pour la production d’une histoire féministe ? À partir d’une approche (n)ethnographique auprès du collectif féministe #NousToutes (2018-2021), cet article s’organise autour de deux principaux axes : les conditions d’entrée sur un terrain féministe et la négociation des recherches ou de soi opérée dans cet espace conflictuel.
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 | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".