Canadian Feminist Perspectives on Digital Technology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of technology in English-speaking communication studies in Canada has been shaped by scholars such as Innis, McLuhan, and Grant, and contemporaneously by Kroker (1994), de Kerckhove (1997), and Levy (2001) for their analyses of cyberculture. Mosco (2006), Raboy (2002), Dyer-Witheford (1999), Barney (2000), and Proulx (2002, 2003) have made important contributions to the political economy of communications and its relations to digital technology. Despite the important insights of these scholars, most of this work does not address, incorporate or attend to gender in its conceptualization nor engage with any of the insights and/or contributions in feminist scholarship on technology. One of the few overt feminist critiques of the discipline came from Gertrude Robinson, a long time scholar in the field. In 1998, she explored how feminism has contributed to communication studies through its incorporation of “gender as one of the primary social organizers which works in conjunction with economic and political relationships,” yet this work continues to be marginalized. We hope that in this short offering we can characterize the rich and evergrowing critical feminist perspective on digital technology and reveal the ways in which this work can enhance, invigorate, and perpetuate/innovate the important contributions Canadian scholars have made to the discipline in communication studies.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it