MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053092501 · doi:10.1093/cww/vpv002

African Diasporic Women’s Narratives: Politics of Resistance, Survival, and Citizenship

2015· article· en· W2053092501 on OpenAlexaff
Melissa Stephens

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Women s Writing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican history and culture studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitizenshipGender studiesPoliticsMasculinityNarrativeReactionaryRacismDiasporaFemininityImmigrationResistance (ecology)Racial profilingSociologyPolitical scienceArtLawRace (biology)Literature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The medical-industrial complex can inflame racialized anxieties about disease control, border control, and access to health care. The Ebola outbreak in 2014 is just one example of how these anxieties intersect on a global scale. This book, which focuses on Saartije Baartman, Audre Lorde, Maryse Condé, Edwidge Danticat, and Grace Nichols, is a timely examination of the “embodied resistance to medical diagnosis” (5). Simone A. James Alexander reminds the reader of the centrality of health to a long history of black feminist intersectional analysis (see also White 1995; Smith 2002). She interrogates “medical profiling” (47) by hetero-patriarchal states and deconstructs the racist stereotypes of black women that undergird such domination. Further, her critique of reactionary U.S. immigration officials who mistreat Haitians entering the United States as potential HIV/AIDS carriers represents one of many occasions for an extended analysis of negotiations and resistances to medical regimes. Refusing to fixate on suffering, Alexander celebrates African Diasporic women’s transgressions of Western femininity, medicine, and citizenship.

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)0.006
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0270.033
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueContemporary Women s WritingSame topicAfrican history and culture studiesFrench-language works237,207