Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is an imaginary of Europe embedded in the European Journal of Women’s Studies that implicitly or explicitly orientates the contours of its scope and terms of engagement. What this means is that there is more to the ‘Europe ’ of the EJWS than simply that it is produced from Europe. Rather the ‘Europe ’ in the title is an active framing principle for the journal and its authors whether this is consciously known and/or explicitly engaged. In some ways this ‘Europe as active principle ’ approach has been there since the jour-nal’s inception, though in a narrower way. Then the ‘Europe ’ was a place from which to enter into and/or inflect feminist debates and theoretical developments that were emerg-ing in the USA, as well as an attempt to make a statement against considering the USA as the only or major site of feminist studies and knowledge production. It was in a sense aimed at staging a kind of transatlantic conversation (as Kathy Davis and Mary Evans have called it) in which despite being multi-sited in the sense of coming from an array of national locations in the European landmass and state locations in the USA, the transat-lantic still tended to mean USA (and maybe Canada) on one side, and north west to west central Europe on the other side. Now the aim is to cast the scope of ‘Europe ’ (and its conversations) wider and deeper. In the view of the editors there are a number of reasons why this should be so. The first is loyalty to the by now well-established feminist principle regarding the importance of declaring one’s locatedness (as multiple as this might and must be in a field called ‘European’) so as to refuse the idea and claim that one speaks from no-where. Instead, we adhere to the importance of stating exactly where one is speaking, thinking, experiencing from and, of equal importance, why and how that matters, i.e. how any specific locatedness inflects the speaking, thinking, experiencing and what it brings into and occludes from view. A second reason is that it helps us to meet our aim of contributing to the disciplining and ‘provincializing ’ of Europe (to use Chakrabarty’s [2000] evocative and provocative
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 | 0.015 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".