Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research framework: The relations between family and politics are characterized by their diversity. This variety stems as much from changes in the notion of family as from the contemporary range of forms and types of political commitment. Objectives: This issue seeks to document the various forms taken by the relationship between family and politics. Methodology: The papers in this issue are based on qualitative approaches, enabling a detailed analysis of the often complex interplay between family and politics. Results: The family still appears to be a relevant variable in the analysis of political commitment. While political involvement can take place against the family's wishes, the family can also be the cause of the involvement. Moreover, while the links between family and politics may be plural, they also depend on the nature of the political transmission that takes place within the family circle. Conclusions: The contributions in this issue highlight the fact that the family/political pair cannot do without a reflection on the intertwining of the public and private spheres. Contribution: By re-examining the links between family and politics, this issue builds on previous reflections, while inviting us to discuss gender relations, the importance of affects and the place of intimacy in these relationships.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".