Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract General systems theory is compatible with the spirit of feminist thought. The unnecessary association of systems theory with hierarchy and status quo‐oriented proponents has formed a limited impression of what it can offer to feminisms. Looking at a fuller range of systems‐oriented work shows up that, like feminisms, systems theory has been radical in its rejection of traditional ways of analytic thinking. This paper looks at two central feminist ideas, sexuality and equality, as a spirit of feminism to forge a link between feminisms and systems theory. This shows up several areas of common ground between feminisms and a general systems theory approach to the benefit of both. The idea that action and inaction and equally causal derives from cybernetics and echoes a cell to action for social change in feminisms. Cybernetic causality reflects notions of discourse and fluid identities, allowing analysts to move beyond blame and dichotomous units. The idea that systems of logic are parallel relates closely to standpoint feminism. Systems focus on different outcomes to the same stimuli provides a way to capture emotion as a property of human interaction. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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".