Bridging Matriarchal Order and Patriarchal Culture in a State Institution: The Evolving <i>Femspec</i> Kitchen on the Eighteenth Floor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What follows is a discussion of the issues that arise editing a modern progressive feminist journal in the midst of a public university that seems at times to operate more in the paleolithic hunting tradition. 1 This article by an outgoing graduate assistant and the editor-in-chief of Femspec 2 explores conflicts between feminist and mainstream approaches to the work life of the journal. We show how by adopting an historical perspective along with perseverance, commitment, a little understanding and goodwill, the conflict can be resolved. Although fitting the gender stereotype, our office is like an institutional kitchen – hot, cramped, and chaotic. Well, while we were sitting in the midst of it writing this article in the summer in the fourth year of our small journal’s existence, our quarters looked like a small kitchen. We were surrounded by To-Do lists. Scrawled on a countertop white board were unfinished assignments along with the interns from spring semester who abandoned them. There was a bulletin board with the fall issue, and cryptic notes like ‘Ritch already has this – being revised – withdrawn, Helford Dec. 5, 01,’ a photo of a departing editorial board member’s husband, Paco, who helped put up the web page last summer. There was an unexpected suitcase on the floor, filled with promotional material for the Octavia Butler visit. After her visit, the luggage arrived here, in the English Department, in the Femspec office, where it now sits, waiting to be unpacked. The editor’s daughter needs that bag. She’s going to overnight camp. Got the picture? Amidst this chaos, we decided to make a list; we make lots of lists here. We want to itemize the ways we can move, in Adrienne Rich’s
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".