MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970422643 · doi:10.1215/15476715-2008-047

Challenging Binaries: Working-Class Women and Lived Religion in English Canada and the United States

2009· article· en· W1970422643 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lynne Marks

Bibliographic record

VenueLabor Studies in Working-Class History of the Americas · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAmerican Constitutional Law and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorking classGender studiesClass (philosophy)SociologyConsumption (sociology)Value (mathematics)Field (mathematics)Social sciencePolitical sciencePoliticsEpistemologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This essay argues that while historians of working-class women have generally developed a complex and multi-faceted approach to studying their subjects, that religion has remained largely invisible in such studies. This essay argues for the value of incorporating religion as a category of analysis in the study of working-class women. It provides some discussion of absences in the existing literature, primarily using American and English Canadian examples along with a few forays into relevant British work. More attention is focused on recent literature which does fully incorporate religion into the lives of their subjects, such as work in African-American women's history and within the field of “lived religion”. Scholars of lived religion explore religion as part of working-class women's lives, and demonstrate the complex, messy and important ways in which the religious and the secular can combine in everyday lives. This essay explores reasons why most scholars of working-class women have largely ignored religion and argues that the approaches discussed here can point the way forward for the field of working-class women's history. The essay provides examples of particular areas of study, such as motherhood, consumption and women and unions, as areas where our ability to “see” religion as part of women's lives would deepen and strengthen our understanding of these topics.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.245 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLabor Studies in Working-Class History of the AmericasSame topicAmerican Constitutional Law and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207