MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976977470 · doi:10.1353/jowh.2012.0050

Transnational Feminism and Contextualized Intersectionality at the 2001 World Conference Against Racism

2012· article· en· W1976977470 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sylvanna M. Falcón

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of women's history · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Politics and Representation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRacismFeminismIntersectionalityGender studiesSociologySocial activismPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article examines the organizing efforts of North American feminists from Canada, the United States, and Mexico during the preparatory period prior to the 2001 United Nations World Conference Against Racism held in Durban, South Africa. Preparing for the world conference fostered a process where new transnational coalitions and new articulations of racism flourished; these often overlooked outcomes remain fundamental to understanding transnational feminist interventions at the UN world conference. A tremendous amount of strategizing and preparation preceded the successes that feminist activists achieved at the Durban conference. Based on qualitative methodology, which includes in-depth interviews and participant observation, my research shows that engaging with a contextualized form of intersectionality enables more complex dialogues about racism. Moreover, by highlighting women's activism in three distinct social locations, this article also encapsulates how national contexts shape feminist activists' goals and experiences in transnational spaces.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.026
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.013
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of women's historySame topicGender Politics and RepresentationFrench-language works237,207