Researching Women’s Movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book explores the demands and practices which have emerged from ‘second wave’ women’s movements from the late 1960s and onwards by focusing on relations between majoritised and minoritised women’s movement organisations, and on relations between women’s movement organisations and the state. We have chosen Spain, Norway and the United Kingdom — countries with very different migration histories and gender regimes — as empirical contexts for our study of intersections between women’s movement activism, feminism and ethnic diversity. Our point of departure is the organisational and issue-based divisions that have developed among feminists and women’s movement activists along racial and ethnic lines, and the dynamic relationships between differently situated activists (Roth 2004). Inspired by scholars such as Roth (2004), Sudbury (1998), Frankenberg (1993) and others, we ask: To what extent have ethnic majority and minority women’s organisations engaged with each other? Have they been able to establish a common political platform? What links have been established between women’s movement activism and the state, or what has been the resonance between women’s movement claims and public policy? To answer these questions, we have collected original, empirical data in the form of qualitative interviews with ethnic majority and minority women’s movement organisations and policymakers in Norway, Spain and the United Kingdom. We have also conducted a mapping of select policy documents.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".