MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1503803256

CHALLENGING DIVERSITY: Rethinking Equality and the Value of Difference

2006· article· en· W1503803256 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Carmela Murdocca

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyPoliticsLesbianJurisprudenceLawContext (archaeology)Value (mathematics)Diversity (politics)Gender studiesPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CHALLENGING DIVERSITY: Rethinking Equality and the Value of Difference Davina Cooper Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004; 235pp. Davina Cooper's Challenging Diversity: Rethinking Equality and the Value of Difference grapples with some often overlooked questions in the context of equality jurisprudence. Utilizing what she refers to as the and analytic space of the of as a point of departure, Cooper carves out an analytic terrain of the various ways in which equality are utilized by marginalized groups and can also be co-opted by dominant groups in legal forums. Focussing on equality claims made by gay, lesbian and transgender communities as well as marginalized religious groups, Cooper also examines the various ways in which equality and jurisprudence responds to equality claims organized by groups beyond the left's political and legal gaze, such as smokers, British recreational hunters, divorced fathers, and, in the United States...white conservative Christians who utilize (and most often distort) the reach of equality to graft their various political agendas on to and against the intended aims of equality politics. In this vein, Cooper also examines the co-optation of equality and jurisprudence for the collective self-interpellation of seemingly powerful groups through discourses of vulnerability (p. 6). Cooper's examination of this politically fraught terrain is largely a theoretical exercise focussing on the ways in which equality claims cast themselves within and against discourses of harm. To this end, Cooper offers a reading of writers whose work broadly engages the notions of social diversity and the of freedom. These theorists include Chantai Mouffe, Nancy Fraser, Susan Miller-Okin, Jeffrey Weeks, Zillah Eisensten and Judith Butler, among others. As a particular political rationality, harm functions as both the conceptual and procedural basis upon which equality proceeds. To get at the political, and subjective workings of harm, Cooper's analysis focusses briefly on a number of empirical sites which include the debate about religious symbolism in the context of the Orthodox Jewish community that erupted in Britain in the early 1990s over establishment of an eruv in London, the claims made by pro-smoking lobby groups, the debate about the of gender that divides (some) feminist and transgender activist communities, and the various debates surrounding same-sex marriage and same-sex registered partnership. Cooper attempts to unpack these debates in the hopes of intervening in equal politics which in her view stands in for a set of political and social commitments that are predicated on the need to transform key institutions, structures and practices (p. 9). In this sense. Cooper's intervention unsettles the nature and content of diversity's and, in a related manner, the subject of diversity, in order to begin to disrupt the normative orientations of equality politics. Examining the political challenges facing radical equality today, Cooper asks the following questions: what does equality mean for individual choices that appear to be harmful?; is the of equality a concern of individuals, of groups, or of something else entirely?; how can equality be conceived in a way that recognizes the relationship between being and doing, between social structure and individual agency, without losing the specificity of either? …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.172
Scholarly communication0.0220.039
Open science0.0030.025
Research integrity0.0110.022
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.192
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207