De l’analogie à l’enchevêtrement : esclavisation humaine et exploitation animale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article propose de revenir sur l’analogie entre esclavisation humaine, notamment dans sa forme étatsunienne, et exploitation animale. Il partira d’une relecture de The Dreaded Comparison. Human and Animal Slavery , de Marjorie Spiegel (1988), et l’enrichira d’études plus tardives sur des questions similaires. L’article interroge l’analogie établie entre la mise en esclavage humain et l’exploitation animale permet de penser des logiques de domination communes, et les idéologies qui les sous-tendent. Les questions qui guideront l’étude seront les suivantes : au-delà de leur étymologie, quel lien peut-on établir entre domestication et domination ? L’épistémologie de l’enchevêtrement est-elle plus appropriée que celle de l’analogie pour penser le lien entre esclavisation humaine et exploitation animale ? Enfin, l’abolition de l’esclavage (dans sa forme étatsunienne) permet-elle d’envisager un horizon possible d’émancipation pour les animaux non humains ?
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".