MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318063578 · doi:10.1080/08164649.2011.621179

RECREATING IGNORANCE?

2012· article· en· W2318063578 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Wendt

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Feminist Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Security, and Conflict
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIgnoranceLegitimacyResistance (ecology)PoliticsGender studiesSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2001, the first major study of the extent of men's violence against women in Sweden reported that almost every other woman had been exposed to male violence. This article investigates how this feminist-based survey was negotiated by the press and in national politics. The legitimacy of the investigation was undermined in a number of ways, both in the media and in politics. The report was defined as partial and not as reliable as ‘conventional’ criminological research. The resistance provoked by the investigation is here interpreted as a way of producing nationalistic notions, where ‘Swedishness’ is recreated as being woman-friendly, just and equal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.035
Scholarly communication0.0130.015
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Feminist StudiesSame topicGender, Security, and ConflictFrench-language works237,207