Comment définir un groupe sans exclure aucune de ses parties ? Le genre et la notion sartrienne de la structure sérielle selon Iris Marion Young
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the criticisms of many women in society who disapprove and delegitimize feminist theories that take the white, ethnocentric heterosexist conception of women as a model, Iris Marion Young attempts to think of the group “woman” as a group, without excluding any of its parts. This task leads her to the Sartrean notion of serial structure to think of women as a social group whose members do not necessarily have to share the same attributes to be recognized as such. This approach allows her to consider the possibility of a feminism that does not rely on the category "women" based on common objects, but as a category that would make a unity with plurality. Embracing different practices and transforming them into political issues unique to the condition of women, Young thus makes it possible to think of feminism as a group in which women, both as singular beings and as beings belonging to several categories, can find themselves, come together, but above all, identify themselves. Feminism considered as a political theory and practice becomes a group with which all women identify.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".