L’adultisme comme outil d’analyse critique : exemple appliqué à l’intervention sociojudiciaire auprès des jeunes vivant en contexte de violence conjugale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Framework: In this article, we propose a theoretical and critical analysis of the social relationship of age, in light of a concept that has emerged from critical social perspectives in recent decades, namely adultism. Objectives: We have two objectives: 1) to conceptualize adultism as a system of oppression that results in epistemic injustices and 2) to exemplify how adultism can manifest itself today, by applying the analysis to socio-judicial intervention with young people living in the context of domestic violence (DV). Methodology: We deconstruct youth-adult social relationships as they are known in Quebec by conducting a theoretical and critical analysis based on the work of Collins (2000) and the emerging literature on adultism. Results: Adultism is a system of oppression formed, developed and perpetuated by four interrelated domains of power: hegemonic, structural, disciplinary and interpersonal. In socio-judicial intervention, these domains of power constitute a major obstacle to the recognition of the epistemic agency of youth living in the context of DV. Adultism contributes to discrediting and marginalizing the voices of these youth; as a result, their views are not always sought, heard, or considered in decisions made about their custody and father-child contact. Conclusion: Through the four domains of power, adultism contributes to young people’s experience of epistemic injustice and poses barriers to the recognition of their agency. Contribution: The article highlights the potential for social transformation of a better recognition of adultism, particularly in the intervention with young people living in the context of DV, as well as the relevance of its use as a tool for critical analysis.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".