Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article notes presente la biographie de Sirin Tekeli, une importante femmes de lettres de Turquie, une feministe et activiste que la narratrice a rencontree recemment en France. L'auteure conteste la pratique habituelle des biographies posthumes des femmes notoires alors qu'elle favorise plutot des extraits de leur biographie. Wrestling with worn-out metaphors used for women in literature is not the aim of this essay. But I am bound to begin with this because of the photograph. I have been staring at this picture that I took on January 26,2013, at a flower market in Nice (Court Saleya), before venturing my first lines. I can close my eyes and tell you all the colours, the order and the shapes of the flowers that accompany her smile and leather gloves. The flowery background of an intellectual and activist feminist whose life journey took her temporarily from Turkey to France, only to relieve her soul that has refused to belong to one nation or culture. Moving is for the restless. Men's love for women can be like a red rose but some women are better off when they are likened to mimosas or snowdrops since their achievements in society herald new eras and ideas and they challenge the status quo. The life story I am going tell you is destined to be incomplete. Still, it is worth taking the risk because Sirin Tekeli, a famous and highly respected feminist scholar from Turkey, should also be introduced to a non-Turkish feminist community. Especially because Tekeli believes in the power of global support and network among feminists regardless of the differences and culture-specific issues we have to focus on from time to time. This may sound second-wave and this is fine with me. She is capable of being critical of her own generation to the extent that she can sometimes be cruel to herself and cannot enjoy the long-deserved prestige and the compliments she receives from others. I have witnessed this more than once. After meeting Tekeli at the International Multidisciplinary Womens Congress in Izmir in 2009, where she delivered a speech as one of the plenary speakers, I promised myself I would write her life story one day. Not in an obsessed way but only if she agreed to talk to me about her life over the years, and only if we could develop a relationship based on mutual trust and understanding. After all, I could be her daughter. She does not have children and I haven't yet asked her whether this was intentional or not. I am almost forty years old and have been recruiting family members who are not born out of blood-ties. That is intentional. If I were Cours Saleya in my next life, they would all be my flowers except that they would not be for sale. I enjoy this international spiritual family made up of multiple mothers, dozens of sisters, lovers, dead or alive. Tekeli doesn't know that I am dedicating this mini-biography to her as one of my mothers. If she gets upset because I haven't asked her permission like a good daughter should, I know how to fix it. Because she told me about her favourite flower as we were sharing stories of love and life over grappa. It is usually only after someone dies and when it is too late for the subject matter to contribute (be it a milestone figure in Turkish feminist history or not) that most of us begin to compose works of praise or introductory texts for the person. I am also one of these: I like archival work and excavating feminist ghosts from their buried and forgotten spots. Now I have to lay my concerns aside about what Tekeli is going to think or how inadequate and embarrassed I might feel after this piece of life writing is published. I have confidence in her that she will be supportive of me. Because she has been. Each time I have attempted to write something ... anything ... to express my feelings as a woman and expose my research she has told me to go for it. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Let us return to the photograph taken in the flower market. …
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.005 |
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".