Toward a transnational feminist methodology of encounter
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article I discuss my experiences conducting fieldwork in Nicaragua over two summers as a starting point for thinking about a feminist methodology of encounters. A feminist methodology of encounters directs our attention to the ways in which research work consists of multiple, fragmented and complex encounters between experiencing subjects. In this article I suggest that a feminist methodology of encounters provides pedagogical insight into how researchers can be situated ‘between’ participants and sites of research. In particular, in my research it is not only an examination of ‘betweenness’ in that I am looking to the everyday uncertainties of encounters, but also that my work often became situated as ‘between’ hosts and volunteers. The problematic is to attend to the ways in which encounters are never fully accomplished or predetermined, but also that they happen between actors, as did both my research and the process of researching. This methodology attends to the important political dimensions of this ‘betweenness’.
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.
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 | 0.139 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it