Bibliographic record
Abstract
Late 20th-century academic feminism has been impressively successful. In contrast to their sparse presence in pre-1970s academia, women make up the majority of students and faculty members in most social science and humanities disciplines, and in professions such as law and medicine; women’s recruitment to the natural and physical sciences has become an institutional priority; women occupy many high-level academic-administrative positions; and, feminist intellectual perspectives have undermined and in some cases replaced male-centred knowledge paradigms. Yet this successful intervention into the academy has taken place at the same time as another process, corporatization, has been reconfiguring the academy in significant ways. That these transformative interventions have been reshaping the academic terrain at the same time seems counterintuitive. A feminist vision for the university hardly seems compatible with the commoditization and commercialization of teaching and research that accompanies corporatization. Their concurrence thus raises important theoretical and political questions. Has the success of the feminist intervention intermingled with and been shaped by corporatization? Have academic women’s advancements actually aided corporatization? This article explores these provocative questions and their implications for the future of academic feminism and for the university as a public-serving institution. It calls on feminist scholars and activists to come forward with a renewed vision for the university, one that could help to bring together and provide focus to the various attempts by students and faculty to wrest universities from the grip of the neoliberal policies that have given them a corporate shape.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".