An Intimate Affair: Women, Lingerie, and Sexuality. By Jill Fields. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. xvi, 375 pp. Cloth, $55.00, ISBN 978-0-520-22369-1. Paper, $21.95, ISBN 978-0-520-25261-5.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jill Fields has pursued “the dynamics of gendered fashion, power, and sexuality” in full-bore feminist style (p. 256). Her research spans 1900 to 1959, with brief reference to nineteenth-century lingerie. She employs consumer periodicals, catalogs, “house” newspapers, trade journals, union records, interviews, films, and some extant undergarments. Fields focuses on the United States, occasionally mentioning Canadian trends. Her chapters are entitled, “Drawers,” “Corsets and Girdles,” “Brassieres,” “The Meaning of Black Lingerie,” “The Invisible Woman,” “The Production of Glamour,” and “Return of the Repressed (Waist), 1947–1952.” Labor historians will find useful her analysis in chapter 6 of the vicissitudes of the White Goods Workers Local 62, International Ladies Garment Workers Union (ilgwu), centered in New York City. Fields has utilized ilgwu papers to show progress in organizing workers, despite internal and external struggles, through the 1950s. Workers positioned themselves as both producers and consumers of fashion, using a well-styled appearance to gain respect from management and the general public. Pins and Needles, a 1937–1938 union-produced musical revue about the lingerie industry, made a further bid for empathy from a general audience.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.006 |
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".