Bibliographic record
Abstract
In September 2001, thirty-three editors of women's studies journals from fifteen countries attended a workshop for the International Women's Studies Journals Network (recently renamed the Feminist Knowledge Network) in Halifax, Nova Scotia. The purpose of the workshop was to explore how women's studies journals could establish transnational connections and better contribute to the development of a transnational feminist theory and practice. In attendance, were feminist editors from Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, England, India, Indonesia, Korea, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, the Sudan, Uganda, and the United States. Marilyn Porter, the organizer of the workshop and editor of the journal Atlantis, made an effort to ensure that journals from the economic North would be in the minority. For example, there were only two journals from the United States represented at the workshop: Feminist Studies and NWSA Journal. This decision enabled the decentering of northern, especially U.S., feminist perspectives and thus challenged the ways in which U.S. imperialism ensures greater access to U.S. cultural products (in this case, feminist ideas and publications) than to feminist work from other places in the world, especially the economic South.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".