MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971220596 · doi:10.1080/0966369x.2019.1618246

Dilemmas of feminist practice in transnational spaces: Solidarity, personal growth, and potential solutions

2019· article· en· W2971220596 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hamsa Rajan, Kerrie Thornhill

Bibliographic record

VenueGender Place & Culture · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidaritySociologyPrivilege (computing)PaternalismGender studiesInsiderSection (typography)White privilegeRace (biology)Political scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we introduce Revisiting Dilemmas in Transnational Feminist Research and Practice, a themed section of Gender, Place and Culture. Composed of four articles and this Introduction, the section builds from a core problem, documented in the literature, that feminist engagements between the global ‘South’ and ‘North’ can lead Northerners or outsiders to inadvertently essentialise the ‘culture’ of underprivileged groups and hold to paternalistic attitudes towards marginalised communities, even while attempting to confront and mitigate inequalities. While privilege can be an obstacle to solidarity work, how might solidarity be ethically and respectfully built, across chasms of race, class, nation, and other forms of difference? This themed section focuses primarily on this question, through evidence and researcher reflections from settings as disparate as southern Africa, Nigeria, Jordan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Canada. The articles also describe the uncomfortable circumstances encountered by researchers who occupy both an insider and outsider position in the communities they work with, but move beyond this description to discuss how this type of positionality can produce valuable insights. In this Introduction, we summarise and describe the four articles contained in the themed section, pointing to the ways in which the authors help to enhance our understanding of the problems inherent in transnational feminist work and potential solutions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGender Place & CultureSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207