Theory and Praxis: The Feminist Solidarity Group at UT-Austin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the issue feminist solidarity through the lens of an organization founded in the English Department at the University of Texas at Austin in 2006. The Feminist Solidarity Group provides support and forums for open discussion for graduate students seeking to emphasize collaboration, coalition-building, and self-reflection in their academic work. The essay begins with a conversation between the founders of the FSG, authors Erin Hurt and Layne Craig. Then, the essay puts the concrete history and activities of the Feminist Solidarity Group into the context of the history of solidarity as a concept in feminist communities, with particular emphasis on the work of bell hooks, Robin Morgan, and Chandra Mohanty. Ideas under particular consideration in this analysis include ethical approaches to the language of feminism and solidarity, ways to address conflicts and coalitions among feminist communities, and solidarity between academic feminists and extra-academic feminist communities. The essay ends with a reflection on the implications of the Feminist Solidarity Group as an ideological organization for other forms of feminist solidarity in the communities under discussion in the roundtable responses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".