Stakes and Challenges of an Intersectional Feminist Politics: The Experience of Action of Disabled Women (Montreal)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of an intersectional feminist perspective constitutes the most recent response to the theoretical and political issues raised by the existence of differences among women. This article is interested in the ways feminist organizations « do intersectionality », that is, translate this theoretical perspective in their political practice. Centering on the study of a disabled women’s organization, Action des femmes handicapees (Montreal), it focuses on documenting political uses of intersectionality that call for the articulation of gender to ableism, an axis of domination that remains under-represented in intersectionality studies. The article identifies the main elements of the intersectional feminist politics deployed by this organization, and assesses how these politics have been received by the able-bodied majority in the Quebec feminist movement. It further argues that the practice of intersectionality in the feminist movement currently varies according to the « minority » or « majority » status of its political agents.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.047 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".