MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974184617 · doi:10.1177/0021934714568456

Conferencing as a Site for the Mobilization of Black Feminist Identities in the Congress of Black Women of Canada, 1973-1983

2015· article· en· W1974184617 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer S. Mills

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Black Studies · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersYork UniversityAustralian Government
KeywordsGender studiesOppressionSociologyRacismRedressGrassrootsHuman sexualityCitizenshipIdeologyFeminismPolitical scienceLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Congress of Black Women of Canada (CBWC) is a social movement organization that has represented the interests of Black women in this country for more than four decades at the national and local levels. While Black Canadian feminist scholars have started to explore women’s organizations, the CBWC’s organizing efforts is missing from the feminist record. This article seeks to redress this gap by using a Black feminist synthetic perspective to document the CBWC’s conference themes and issues between 1973 and 1983. Focusing on the organization’s conferences, this article uses organizational documents to analyze their workshop topics concerning youth and education, triple oppression, women’s movement, pay equity, immigration, racial profiling, institutionalized racism, health, multiculturalism, and sexuality. Given the CBWC’s focus on Black women and their families, understanding how members used their identities, ideologies, and institutions as critical categories to interpret their experiences is a particular concern. This article argues that these conferences were more than an empirical space for Black women’s gatherings. The conferences served as a time for the recovery, affirmation, and mobilization of Black feminist identities, that is, a time for connecting consciousness.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.728

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Black StudiesSame topicCanadian Identity and HistoryFrench-language works237,207