Doing critical feminist research: A <i>Feminism & Psychology</i> reader
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As we approach Feminism & Psychology’s 30th anniversary, we reflect on and explore what makes the journal distinctive – its emphasis on critical feminist psychology. In this article and the accompanying Virtual Special Issue, we outline five methodological considerations that we believe are at the heart of critical feminist scholarship: 1) the politics of asking questions; 2) attention to language/discourse; 3) reflexivity; 4) representation and intersectionality; and 5) mobilizing research for social change. We then draw across a set of 15 articles published in the archives of Feminism & Psychology that showcase one or more of these key features and demonstrate the ‘doing’ of critical feminist psychology. These articles are housed on the journal’s website, as is an additional paper developed for students or those in a position of learning, which explores central ideas and debates that have culminated in critical feminist psychology.
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 | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".