What D/discourse analysis can tell us about neoliberal constructions of (gendered) personhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How do the commonsense claims of Discourse (systems of knowledge production) relate to those of discourses (informal conversations, texts)? Under what conditions does a Discourse become commonsense and how, when, and under what conditions does it lose this status? How can we track changes in gendered D/discourses over time? This paper explores these questions with reference to the neoliberal, gendered constructions of personhood accompanying welfare reforms in Aotearoa/New Zealand in 1991 and 1996, and the changes that have occurred since Aotearoa/New Zealand began, in 1999, to retreat from neoliberalism. An understanding of the place of neoliberal conceptualizations of personhood in the discourse of poor single mothers and welfare providers, and in policy texts five years after the government shift, calls for a D/discourse analysis that is oriented simultaneously to the problematics of commonsense and temporality.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".