Mères obliques, asymétrie et soutien chez Adriana Cavarero : esquisse d’un modèle incliné du sujet résilient1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dans une entrevue tenue en 2008, la philosophe Adriana Cavarero soulignait l’importance de travailler « à partir des stéréotypes » patriarcaux et de resignifier ceux-ci à des fins féministes. Dans le présent article, l’autrice vise à analyser la manière dont se décline cette méthode de resignification dans l’ouvrage Inclinations, où Cavarero se réapproprie la figure stéréotypée de la mère sacrificielle afin de proposer une critique du sujet autosuffisant. L’article est consacré à l’examen du potentiel féministe et heuristique de ce sujet maternel incliné. Si Cavarero accorde une place trop discrète à l’ambivalence et aux affects négatifs accompagnant inévitablement le soin (care), l’autrice de l’article soutient néanmoins que la théorie de l’inclinaison cavareronienne – plus précisément son éloge du soutien, du relationnel et de l’asymétrie – constitue un puissant outil pour repenser le concept de résilience.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".