Epistemological Perspectives on Concepts of Gender and Masculinity/Masculinities
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article questions the epistemology implied in the enunciation of the concept of masculinity, whether singular or plural. How are we to understand the epistemology underlying such a theory? In present time it seems that epistemological theorization about such problems is often neglected and Men's Studies prefer a more applied orientation. However, the specificity of Men's Studies as a disciplinary field largely depends of the way they can ground their task in face of other disciplines, especially Women Studies. We propose an understanding of the concept of masculinity/ies in reference to the discursive stance of Men's Studies theorists. From there, we focus on the dualism implied in the dominant concept of masculinity in Men's Studies. We try to envisage what happens when this dominant dualistic epistemological stance is challenged by the conceptions of knowledge and natural body emanating from the so-called science and religion dialogue.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it