Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite their inherently transgressive dimension, neither the French Resistance nor its maquis groups challenged the assimilation of virile and warlike qualities in force during World War Two. While historiography has extensively studied the assistance functions assigned to female members of the Resistance, a number of questions remain. Why did the maquis groups “virilize” warfare with as much application as regular armies? What circumstances, on the contrary, led to exceptions to this rule, and with what consequences? Through the portraits of some of the women who joined the maquis, or even took up arms, this article examines gender assignments and the fate of women who transgressed them—bringing to light power structures that the resistance itself was not yet ready to question. Malgré leur dimension par essence transgressive, ni la résistance intérieure française ni ses maquis n'ont remis en question l'assimilation entre qualités viriles et qualités guerrières en vigueur durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Si l'historiographie a largement étudié les fonctions d'assistance dès lors dévolues aux résistantes, plusieurs interrogations demeurent. Pourquoi la lutte armée maquisarde a-t-elle “virilisé” la guerre avec autant d'application que les armées régulières? Quelles circonstances mènent au contraire à déroger à cette règle, et avec quelles conséquences? À travers le portrait de quelques femmes ayant rejoint les maquis, voire y ayant pris les armes, cet article interroge les assignations de genre et le sort de celles qui les ont transgressées—mettant au jour des structures de pouvoir que la résistance elle-même n'est alors pas prête à interroger.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".