Bibliographic record
Abstract
Challenging Liberalism, Feminism as Political Critique, Lisa H. Schwartzman, University Park PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006, pp. 210. Lisa Schwartzman's Challenging Liberalism begins with the observation that equality, autonomy and individual rights are the foundation of many feminists' political demands. In this way liberalism has facilitated women's struggle for equality, from the acquisition of the suffrage to abortion rights. At the same time, however, liberal principles are also sometimes used in ways that are troubling to feminists. Freedom of expression, for example, can be understood to protect an individual's right to engage in racist hate speech or produce violent pornography. Schwartzman's goal is to examine why, from a feminist perspective, liberal concepts function in such a contradictory way and to offer a feminist reconsideration of liberalism. She contends that such a reformulation would not only be more consistent with liberalism itself, but also that it would be a more effective way for women, and perhaps all individuals whose political demands group them as a “class of persons,” to address their political demands. Schwartzman's work is engaging, and her discussion of other theorists who have addressed these questions is thoughtful and detailed. The strength of these chapters is such that one wishes she had more fully developed her conclusions.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".