KATE EICHHORN, The Archival Turn in Feminism: Outrage in Order
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Journal of the Association of Canadian Archivists -All rights reserved and disciplinary lines.Kuhlmann shows that the exhibition's dramatization of archival materials both displays the mutable function and meaning of records and destabilizes the categories by which documents are classified.Similarly, Rivka Syd Eisner, Paul Clarke, and Louise Wolthers, building upon Rebecca Schneider's theorization of re-enactments as documents, describe how embodied archives and re-enactments that take place within the context of museums trouble the distinction between documents and events, and archival records and art.This book persuasively demonstrates that contemporary performancebased artistic practices pose critical questions of archives and archival technologies.However, these demands may not reach archival practice and theory until scholars supplement their analyses of performative practices with current archival scholarship.Indeed, many of the contributors compromise their critiques by levelling them solely against a model of the archive that clings to absolute objectivity, pristine authorship, and steadfast authority -that is, a model that many archival theorists have already contested.The scarcity of archival literature in the collection under review calls for archival scholars interested in performance and embodied cultural records to integrate an understanding of contemporary archival principles and practices into critical assessments of the impact of performative approaches to archiving on current archival tenets.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".