Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2009, a group of feminist academics at York University participated in a lecture series revisiting key themes from the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW)'s 1984 collection Knowledge Reconsidered: A Feminist Overview.The lectures were held with the aim of "refocusing the lens on feminist knowledge in the academy" (15).This book is the literary product of these lectures.The seven substantive chapters in the book deal with one or more of three central themes: 1) the importance of feminist knowledge production; 2) challenges posed by neoliberal approaches to education and university corporatization; and 3) feminist scholarship as a form of activism and/or resistance to the increasingly corporate university environment.As a whole, this is a collection rich in reflexive analysis of how knowledge production shapes, and is shaped by, the environment in which it occurs.In chapter one, Meg Luxton explores the transformative nature of feminist scholarship on the academy while effectively demonstrating through the discussion of gendered distribution of elite research positions in Canada that academia is not exempt from patterns of inequality.In chapter two, M. Jacqui Alexander and Chandra Talpade Mohanty further explore the politics of knowledge construction by mapping transnational feminism throughout women's studies and LGBTT/queer studies syllabi in U.S. colleges and universities.The author's conceptual use of cartographies to map histories and geographies of power is a significant contribution, as is their challenge to the academic/activist divide so often employed in academic discourse (see Eschle and Maiguashca, 2006).Chapter three shifts from feminist knowledge in the academy to a focus on sexuality research in a global context.Here, Elisabeth Young-Bruehl 1
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.135 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".