Scripted skins: (th)inking about women's spiritually-inspired tattoos as embodied life narratives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Theorizing the body as a space where subjectivity is materialized, in this thesis, I \nexamine women’s spiritually-inspired tattoos as embodied life narratives. Broadly speaking, a \nprimary goal of my research is to better understand ways in which women experience \nspirituality. More precisely, I am interested in the ways in which women enact experiences of \ncontemporary spirituality through voluntary tattooing practices. \nBy using a corporeal feminist lens that rejects the Cartesian mind-body dualism (Horner \nand Keane 1), I propose that some women use the intimate connections that they have with their \nbodies to express thoughts, beliefs, experiences and their pasts (Arp xiv). By keeping in mind \nthat body art has the potential to narrate experiences of subjectivity (A. Jones 13), my central aim \nin this thesis is to conceptualize the ways in which inked flesh functions as a space for \nperformative auto/biographical storytelling. Emerging from this, following Amelia Jones, my \nanalysis presumes that body art is neither inherently critical nor inherently reactionary (14). \nInstead, in this iteration, I propose that tattoos are implicit and explicit expressions of women’s \nlived experiences of spirituality, which are intersubjective and multivalent. Tattoos, therefore, are \npolysemic narratives enacted contextually. In short, I argue that women’s spiritually-inspired \ntattoos potentially have profound meanings for the bearer which far exceed decoration \n(Hemingson 10).
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".