Working the Project: Research Proposals and Everyday Practices for Emerging Feminist Researchers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seeking to support graduate students in engaging in feminist sociological research, we provide guidance on "working the project"-working collaboratively and creatively to foster compassion and solidarity as we bring diverse research projects to fruition. We offer reflections on our everyday experiences and struggles as emerging feminist researchers, including with writing research proposals. We also include four condensed research proposals - on the social organization of care work, sex work, criminal justice, and abortion care - to support fellow students in the process. Spurring collaborative, fun and inclusive ways of working, we speak to feminist scholar-activists who may require additional support in navigating the social relations of academe, while contributing to collective projects of investigating and remaking the social organization of everyday life.
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 | 0.225 | 0.199 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.049 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.040 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".