Parler d’emprise, mais pour quoi faire? Analyse des usages de la notion d’emprise par une association féministe de lutte contre les violences conjugales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article interroge la notion d’emprise, issue de la psychologie et largement mobilisée en France par les structures de lutte contre les violences conjugales, y compris les associations féministes, depuis les années 2000. Le recours à cette notion a pu être critiqué, considéré comme révélateur d’une tendance à la psychologisation de la compréhension du phénomène, mais nous proposons d’aller plus loin. L’analyse d’un corpus de 19 clavardages recueillis auprès d’une association féministe qui accompagne des victimes, permet de cibler différents usages de la notion d’emprise, et d’étudier leur efficacité relativement au contexte dans lequel ils se déploient (dans le cadre de l’accompagnement en situation d’urgence ou après la rupture). Au regard des objectifs féministes, la mobilisation de la notion peut participer d’un processus de déresponsabilisation des victimes de violences, utile et déculpabilisant pour elles quand elles sont dans la relation, mais elle devient contre-productive hors de ce cadre.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".