Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emergence of the study of the history of the Holocaust following the “silent years”, which occupied nearly two decades of the post-war era, coincided with the establishment of second wave feminism. Despite the creation of the discipline of Women’s and Gender Studies and the emerging variety of women’s history within post secondary institution, discussion of women in the Holocaust did not become a part of the discourse of history until the late seventies. In addition to the lag in addressing the study of the history of women in the Holocaust, the application of feminist theory to Holocaust history was late to the academic conversation. Feminist history of the Holocaust was finally studied in the early eighties, in order to better understand not only women in the Holocaust but also the Holocaust more generally. However, the discourse failed to evolve and diversify as quickly as other forms of feminist history. As a result of the perceived exceptionality of the Holocaust within the context of history and even within the more specified picture of the history of genocide, the application of feminist theory as well as the understanding of the experiences of women and the implications of gender within the Holocaust remain relatively stunted within the context of Holocaust and feminist history.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".