M. Butterfly (David Cronenberg, 1993) : pour une lecture intersectionnelle des rapports de genre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Le personnage de Butterfly que nous retrouvons dans le long métrage du réalisateur canadien David Cronenberg M. Butterfly (1993) est inspiré d’une figure féminine construite en Occident sur quasiment un siècle. Sa persistance tout comme ses incessants retours posent question. Un bref récit généalogique, combiné à une série d’analyses du film, nous permettront d’interroger la façon dont certaines histoires populaires voyagent et, avec elles, nos représentations en termes de genre entendu comme construction sociale. C’est par conséquent la construction de Butterfly comme « fantasme public » (Teresa de Lauretis) que nous interrogerons et la façon dont le cinéaste en propose une critique cinématographique. Tout l’enjeu de cet article consistera à montrer comment la construction d’une conception intersectionnelle du genre est rendue visible, certes, dans le récit, mais aussi dans la mise en scène.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".