MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1613297386

Women's Fashion Shows as Feminist Trans-formation

2015· article· en· W1613297386 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shauna Butterwick, Marilou Carrillo, Kim Villagante

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender studiesSociologyPerformative utteranceEmancipationFeminismPower (physics)PraxisPoliticsTransnationalismSubalternAestheticsPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article has emerged from a research partnership between a feminist Filipino activist, a feminist academic researcher and ally, and community-based researcher. In this discussion, we explore a unique arts-based feminist popular education project which used the format of a fashion show, which is not usually associated with women’s emancipation, to tell stories about the colonization of the Philippines, its history and present neocolonial practices and their role in constructing and constraining Filipino women’s freedom and opportunities. In 2004, 2005 and 2008, the Philippine Women’s Centre of British Columbia (PWCBC), one of the longest standing feminist organizations in Vancouver, created and launched three Political Fashion Shows. Framed by feminist perspectives of transnationalism and global capitalism, as well as feminist approaches to popular education, we comment on three scenes from these shows which we have selected as they exemplify the power of visual and performative art to speak truth to power and create spaces of public pedagogy and feminist praxis.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.027
Scholarly communication0.0110.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult EducationSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207