Forum: Feminism in German Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pioneers and Foundational Texts Christa reinig's often quoted statement, "literatur ist ein hartes Männergeschäft von dreitausend Jahren her.Das muß jede autorin erfahren, wenn sie das Wort ich gebraucht" (119-20), sums up key topics, challenges, and debates of feminist literary criticism of the 1970s.reinig highlights two major areas that were crucial to this critical approach, which was developed in the late 1960s and 1970s in the context of the second-wave women's movement.first, reinig asserts that literature and its institutions have been formed and ruled by men and that male authority and perspectives produced the literary field.secondly, women's exclusion from this realm, a 3000-year history of absence and marginalization denies female authors both agency and subjectivity.How then should women writers confront this legacy of silence and how can they find their own voice?such questions were foundational to feminist literary criticism and shaped many of the theoretical approaches and scholarly inquiries in both the North american and West German academy.among the pioneers of the second-wave women's movement, kate Millett (Sexual Politics [1970]), in particular, drew attention to the stereotypical depiction of women in texts by male authors such as Henry Miller or Norman Mailer.from the very beginning, literature thus was seen as instrumental to women's emancipation, but the focus soon shifted to texts written by women authors and their representation of female figures (eagleton 106). of equal importance was the search for a literary tradition by women and the vexing problem of whether a specifically feminine aesthetic could be identified.Critics such as Mary ellmann, ellen Moers, elaine showalter, Patricia Meyer spacks, sandra M. Gilbert and susan Gubar, and Mary Jacobus were instrumental in examining patriarchal gender definitions and their implication for women authors.showalter's A Literature of Their Own: British Women novelists from Brontë to
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".