Les lectures féministes de Hegel : histoire et enjeux de la réinterprétation d’un canon philosophique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article revient sur l’histoire des réceptions féministes de Hegel au xxe siècle et propose une actualisation critique de la philosophie hégélienne à l’aune des problématiques féministes. L’histoire de ces réceptions suppose de distinguer la lecture de Hegel par les féministes (Beauvoir, Lonzi, Irigaray) de la lecture féministe de Hegel à proprement parler, qui correspond à la naissance d’un nouveau champ d’investigation à l’intérieur des études hégéliennes à partir des années 1980 et 1990 aux États-Unis. À partir de ce nouveau champ d’études, il est possible de proposer une actualisation critique de la théorie hégélienne dans une perspective féministe. L’article soutient que si Hegel a eu tort de limiter les femmes à leur rôle domestique et de faire du mariage d’amour la plus haute aspiration de leur existence, son actualité réside néanmoins dans la possibilité de comprendre les luttes féministes comme des luttes de reconnaissance.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".