MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1774823381

Motherhoods: Feminist Solidarity and Fear Rhetoric

2008· article· en· W1774823381 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jessica Restaino

Bibliographic record

VenueThirdspace · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityRhetoricSociologyLimitingPoliticsScope (computer science)Gender studiesFeminismPolitical rhetoricSocial psychologyPolitical sciencePsychologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As we work to understand and achieve feminist solidarity, we must explore the complex and political experience of motherhood. The language of popular media narrowly defines the experience of motherhood as one that is rooted in fear, perfectionism, and helplessness. This limiting and narrow rhetoric undermines feminist solidarity, pushing the diverse experiences of mothers outside of its scope. As feminists, we must celebrate multiple approaches to motherhood(s) that reject limited ideas about the roles and experiences of women-as-mothers.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.051
Scholarly communication0.0110.011
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0040.006
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThirdspaceSame topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207