Embodying Mêtis: The Braiding of Cunning and Bodily Intelligence in Feminist Storymaking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper playfully uses the terms mêtis and Metis to trace the act (the performative doing) and the art (the braiding) of bodily intelligence and cunning in feminist storymaking. To highlight the importance of mêtis/Metis in contemporary feminist scholarship and research methodology, I draw on my own research in embodied lifewriting and narratives of resistance in women’s lives as well as my recent project of re-mythologising the ancient Greek Goddess Metis and her embodiment of mêtis. The term mêtis refers to the quality of bodily intelligence and cunning whilst the term Metis refers to the ancient female mythological figure in Greek mythology. The term cunning is used in this paper as both a noun (the quality of resourcefulness, trickery and elusiveness) and an adjective. The term storymaking is used to suggest a kind of doing and an act of making something – it implies an active, conscious and deliberate act and process. The notion of storymaking also suggests how we make stories and how stories make us (see Metta 2010, 286). In its bridging of the discursive and the corporeal, I see this reclamation project of Metis/mêtis in feminist storymaking as an example of feminist materialist methodology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".