Labouring Feminism and Gendering Working-Class History, Toronto, 29 Sept.-2 Oct. 2005
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly 300 feminist and labour historians gathered at the Munk Centre for International Studies at the University of Toronto for this conference, which was organized by Franca Iacovetta, Rick Halpern, and myself. When we first conceived of the event we thought we might attract around 100 participants; the end result, then, was incredibly encouraging and gratifying. Since I first entered North America's labour history community some five years ago (having decided to move from University College London to the University of Toronto) I have heard a great deal of talk – or lament – about the many problems facing the field of labour history, indeed, of its declining interest and popularity. The conference last autumn was a very strong indicator that this is far from the truth, especially among feminist scholars eager to take new directions in the field. Not only is there clearly a new generation of graduate students interested in labour and working-class history, but they are helping to widen the boundaries, to bring in a diversity of approaches, and to engage with a wide range of paradigms and theoretical literatures. At the same times, senior feminist scholars at the conference were not protective of their approach to labour history, but engaging across the generations, probing, in dialogue. Indeed, their openness to dialogue made this conference ‘feel’ very different from the many labour history conferences I have attended in North America. The depth of scholarship evident in the many sessions and the energetic conversations that took place throughout the weekend made it clear to me that there is a very large, strong, and diverse group of scholars, from graduate students to senior professors, who are working towards rigorously gendered approaches to writing labour and working-class 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.071 | 0.004 |
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".