"A Combination of the Spontaneous and the Strained": 1 Collision, Transformation, and the Book of Jessica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MARIA: In community work there's exchange of power, a sharing, and as a result all get strong. But what I've learned from Jessica in the last little while . . . why do I when talk about these things? It's because I can never own it either [....] It's so hard ... the world is all ownership [....] But in Jessica, who created the story? I didn't create it myself and you didn't either. We have to stop thinking and me. 'LINDA: [...]/ on the land that is Jessica because I'm the mother that tilled that soil. That's where I come from too, and I don't think it's entirely reprehensible, although I know it completely wrecked the land for your people. (Griffiths and Campbell 90-92, emphasis added)2Women's collaborative writing engenders relational processes that can be both knotted and resilient with markedly asymmetrical effects. Cree Metis writer and scholar-activist Maria Campbell articulates a hurt (90) in the opening dialogic epigraph, for example, that directly corresponds with her settler collaborator's stand (92) yet flags a struggle that proves difficult to disentangle. Carey Kaplan and Ellen Cronan Rose are theorists and practitioners who claim to have happily stumbled on almost by accident (Kaplan and Rose 547) and argue that women's collaborative writing provides unparalleled opportunity for seamless, joyous exchange bom of intellectual and emotional synergy (547). Susan Leonardi and Rebecca Pope are similarly excited about the queering of labor and the erotics of collaboration (Leonardi and Pope, (Co)Labored Li(v)es 632) made possible through women's co-authorship, and though a third pair - Daphne Marlatt and Betsy Warland - express careful preoccupation with territory - & the at the edges of losing our way in the mind-direction of the other (Marlatt and Warland 159), their terror relates to a disorienting immersion within rather than alienating friction between one another. By deconstructing literary authority and ownership with eye to how much knowledge is cocreated and coproduced (Lunsford and Ede 4), theory interrogates the depth to which processes of coming-to-know necessarily challenge the primacy of individual thought or expression alongside the tenacious attendant belief in a singular (unmarked white male) author. Feminist literary criticism, then, follows as intuitive ally: if women's collaborative writing is capable of denaturalizing both solitary authorship and heteronormative patriarchy, then its tools presumably potentiate radically interactive, cooperative, and mutually reaffirming processes. Yet Maria Campbell and Linda Griffiths attest to a substantially different collaborative experience, one that is based on sharply conflicting assumptions and intersubjective struggle. Just as Lorraine York expresses a skepticism towards celebratory cor- -relations between women's collaborative work and feminist practice, encouraging instead a theoriz[ation of] women's collaborations as ideological projects that harbor various ideological potentials, some more hierarchical, some more liberatory and subversive (York 4), I argue that the ideological conflict undergirding Campbell and Griffiths's project demands a shifted look at collaborative theory and practice. Campbell and Griffiths's resulting text - The Book of Jessica: A Theatrical Transformation - documents emphatically difficult that critics have been quick, and accurate, to note for its unrelenting conflict, and yet The Book of Jessica also gestures towards potentially transformative practice that may - slowly, tentatively, and painfully - transfigure socio-political relationships through difficult pauses held at sites of particular hurt. While the opening epigraph underlines property's role in complicating an exchange of power, a sharing within community work through which we all get strong (Griffiths & Campbell 90), it also presents experience of relationality that urgently calls for challenging always-already hierarchical configuration of 'you and me' (91). …
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".