Bibliographic record
Abstract
For some time now I have been intrigued by the discourses on post-feminism consistently articulated within popular media. In an attempt to interrogate and understand the rise of this post-feminist movement, this article discusses three of the most popular treatments of the topic: René Denfeld’s The New Victorians (1995), Katie Roiphe’s The Morning After (1993), and Christina Hoff Sommers’s Who Stole Feminism? (1994). Specifically concerned with how these works define feminism, how they articulate the “crisis” of the movement, and what solutions they propose, I am interested in uncovering what is at stake in these debates. The similarities between these books (all published in the early 1990s, all discussing campus feminism, all written by feminist-identified, university-educated women) allow for an assessment of how these young, white, well-educated women position themselves against a movement once thought to be theirs alone. While each author claims to offer insight into the current crisis facing feminism, it is my contention that, collectively, these works signal a fear of the perceived radicalism of feminism on university campuses, a radicalism which these authors attribute to the increasing influence of queer theory, “radical” lesbians, and feminists of colour. These fears over the potential radicalization of young women belie a concern over the loss of literary and canonical traditions, as well as an attendant concern over the legacy of the university as a cultural, intellectual, and social institution.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".