MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165817620 · doi:10.1177/1464700107082365

Embodying the subject

2007· article· en· W2165817620 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFeminist Theory · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOgdenSubject (documents)Embodied cognitionSociologyReading (process)PsychoanalysisFeminist theoryEpistemologyFeminist philosophyGender studiesAestheticsPsychologyFeminismPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a three-part reflection on the status of the lived body in feminist theory. In the first part, I argue that many influential feminist arguments have neglected questions of embodied experience. In the second part, I introduce the work of five clinically grounded psychoanalysts — Esther Bick, Frances Tustin, Donald Meltzer, Thomas Ogden and Didier Anzieu — while showing that it has much to offer those interested in making a critical return to the concrete specificities of the body. In the third part, I explore the work of feminist psychoanalyst Sue Grand. In doing so, I argue that reading feminist texts alongside clinical texts is a useful approach for thinking the subjective experience of bodily life.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.892
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.312 · 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