MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2735516703

The Feminist Bookstore Movement: Lesbian Antiracism and Feminist Accountability

2017· article· en· W2735516703 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole Rizzuto

Bibliographic record

VenueGender forum · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHoganLesbianGender studiesFeminist movementFeminismSociologyFeminist philosophyAccountabilityPolitical scienceLawAnthropology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kristen Hogan: The Feminist Bookstore Movement: Lesbian Antiracism and Feminist Accountability. Duke University Press: Durham, NC. 2016.1 If Kristen Hogan's time at the Toronto Women's Bookstore was love story, (Hogan 86) then her book The Feminist Bookstore Movement: Lesbian Antiracism and Feminist Accountability is the longest 'Dear John' letter ever written. While Hogan fell in love with Feminist Bookstores during the 1990s and the 2000s, this books chronicles the long war and eventual defeat of feminist bookstores by capitalist bookstores. Hogan charted the rise and fall of the feminist bookstore movement through the lifespan of the Feminist Bookstore News, beginning in 1976 and ending at the dawn of the 21st century. Through creating the historical narrative of the Feminist Bookstore movement, Kristen Hogan also introduces the ideas of lesbian antiracist accountability, the feminist shelf, and feminist remembering. These three concepts are important additions to feminist thought and should be further analyzed within the discipline.2 The Feminist Bookstore Movement is separated into seven sections, categorized both chronologically and thematically. Hogan first maps how feminist bookstores formed and incorporated feminist, antiracist collectives within the capitalist system in part one, which spanned from 1970 to 1976. She then looks at how feminist bookstores remained accountable to one another, an aspect of feminist bookstore management in which Hogan believes the Feminist Bookstore News and its editor Carol Seajay played a pivotal role. Part three covers the early 1980s, which can be seen as the highpoint of Feminist Bookstores. In this section, Hogan shows how conferences, book orders, lobbying efforts, and romantic and platonic relationships allowed feminist bookstore workers to work together to influence the publishing industry on a global level. At the same time, these women were able to remain accountable to one another in their efforts to create safe spaces for antiracist feminist activism and education. It is not until part four that Hogan introduces the feminist shelf, which is the most important new idea introduced in The Feminist Bookstore Movement. Hogan ends the work by looking at how the feminist bookstore movement was destroyed by its war against large publishing houses and mainstream booksellers, such as Barnes and Noble and Amazon.com. In her epilogue, Hogan reflects on what the feminist bookstore movement provided to the feminist movement as a whole and how the ideas introduced by feminist bookstores can continue to influence lesbian antiracist accountability in the 21st century and the world of digital bookstores.3 The role of feminist bookstores within feminism is a topic Hogan has studied for over a decade, and her interest and knowledge of the topic is evident throughout The Feminist Bookstore Movement. Her most remarkable contribution to feminist thought is the introduction of the feminist shelf. This concept encapsulates the practice, common at many feminist bookstores throughout the late 20th century, of curating bookshelves so as to group books by theme and construct a syllabus of certain areas of feminist studies. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.916
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.009
Scholarly communication0.0060.007
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender forum→Same topicCanadian Identity and History→French-language works237,207→