MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1910146015 · doi:10.3138/topia.26.173

Theory That Matters: Feminism, Porous Boundaries and the New Materialisms

2011· article· en· W1910146015 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Astrida Neimanis

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt, Politics, and Modernism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeminismSociologyGender studies

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ocean, watching BBC news footage of the tsunami aftermath in Japan. Shock and mourning over lives literally swept away have been somewhat eclipsed by trepida-tion over a nuclear power plant on the edge. The latest effort to mitigate this impending disaster involves military helicopters and gallons of seawater to pacify the restless fuel rods. Clearly, “nature ” is hardly a passive backdrop for human cul-ture. But while the tsunami itself underlines the hubris of human attempts to keep the sea, the weather, and the earth’s geology at bay, the looming threat of nuclear meltdown also reminds us that it is never a case of “humans ” versus “the environ-ment. ” What is around us also travels through us. Between nature and culture, between “out there ” and “up close, ” between toxic environments and our inner selves, between the city and the sea—these boundaries are always an open question. Responses to these events continue to come in many forms. Critical and cultural theory, too, struggles to make sense of such porous borders, as well as the very real persistence and power of matter in relation to human subjects. While over the past decades poststructuralist theories of discursive construction have brought invalu-able insights, they have also engendered concern over the effacement of material embodiment, agency and the complex ways in which the matter of our environ-ments (a rogue wave, a radioactive milieu) matters. In response, we have seen the T O

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.721
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.156 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicArt, Politics, and ModernismFrench-language works237,207