MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W71235309 · doi:10.7202/1064238ar

Le débat sur la mixité des structures au sein de la CFDT (1976-1982)

2009· article· fr· W71235309 on OpenAlex
Pascale Le Brouster

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSens public · 2009
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticulturalism, Politics, Migration, Gender
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En 1976, lors de son 37e congrès, la CFDT s’engage à réunir les conditions nécessaires pour une insertion réelle des travailleuses dans toutes ses instances de décision. S’élabore alors, non sans résistances, une politique de promotion de parité qui n’est pas sans lien avec la politique de recentrage en cours dans la CFDT. En effet, la question de la mixité s’inscrit au cœur de la réflexion engagée depuis 1977 sur l’adaptation du syndicalisme cédétiste. Celle-ci aboutit en 1982 au congrès de Metz où la CFDT, constatant l’échec des mesures d’incitation, vote une résolution imposant la mixité des structures de l’organisation. Avec ce congrès, la CFDT devient alors la première organisation syndicale à opter pour des mesures volontaristes par l’instauration de quotas. Toutefois, si l’élaboration de la mixité des structures de la CFDT participe d’une stratégie syndicale pour les femmes, le débat qu’elle a suscité est révélateur de la difficulté que connaît la CFDT, et plus généralement le syndicalisme, à dépasser un fonctionnement qui emprunte à un modèle largement masculin.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it