Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article proposes the possibilities of fermentation, or microbial transformation, as a material practice and speculative metaphor through which to approach today’s transnational feminisms. The author approaches this from the perspective of their multiyear curatorial experiment Fermenting Feminism, looking to multidisciplinary practices across the arts that bring together fermentation and feminism in dynamic ways. The article outlines ten ways in which fermentation is a ripe framework for approaching transinclusive, antiracist, countercolonial feminisms. As the author takes up these points, drawing from scholarly and artistic references alongside lived experience, they theorize the ways fermentation taps into the fizzy currents within critical and creative feminist practices. With its explosive, multisensory, and multispecies resonances fermentation becomes a provocation for contemporary transnational feminisms. Is feminism, with its etymological roots in the feminine, something worth preserving? In what ways might it be preserved, and in what ways might it be transformed? The author proposes that fermentation is a generative metaphor, a material practice, and a microbiological process through which feminisms might be reenergized—through symbiotic cultures of feminisms, fermentation prompts fizzy change with the simultaneity of preservation and transformation, futurity and decay.
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 | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".