Repenser le travail des femmes dans le monde agricole à partir du care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issue des travaux de Carol Gilligan et initialement axée sur la question du genre, l’éthique du care a bénéficié d’analyses qui lui ont permis de révéler son potentiel heuristique dans le champ de l’environnement et de l’agriculture. Cet article explore la manière dont la notion de care est actuellement mobilisée en tant que catégorie analytique dans des analyses féministes sur le travail agricole, avant de s’intéresser à la façon dont la notion est saisie par des agricultrices elles-mêmes pour rendre compte de leur définition du travail, dans ses éléments de rupture et de continuité avec les générations de femmes qui les ont précédées. Ce faisant, l’article appuie tout l’intérêt d’une conceptualisation en termes de care pour repenser le travail des femmes dans le monde agricole, par-delà la dichotomie entre tâches domestiques et agricoles qui a traditionnellement marqué la sociologie du travail invisible des agricultrices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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".