Intersectionality beyond feminism? Some methodological and epistemological considerations for research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article aims to extend the discussions that confront the intersectionality of Black American feminists to the ‘consubstantiality of social relations’ espoused by French materialist feminists. It proposes to do so by moving away from this ‘geo-cultural’ territory in order to better anchor the reflection in an epistemological and methodological ground. In order to do this, the article begins with some contributions and controversies of the intersectional approach to the renewal of feminist theories, and then addresses the issues that this renewal raises to the approach of consubstantiality. It then situates the approaches of intersectionality and of consubstantiality on the same epistemological continuum to discuss the middle way unlocked by the intersectionality of Black feminists. Finally, the effects of knowledge of this third way are examined.
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 | 0.110 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.126 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.060 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".