Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “Veiled Constellations: The Veil, Critical Theory, Politics, and ContemporarySociety” conference took place at York University’s Keele Campusand at the University of Toronto on 3-5 June 2010. Sponsors included theSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the TorontoInitiative for Iranian Studies, the Noor Cultural Centre, the Canadian Councilof Muslim Women, the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations,and multiple departments and associations at both universities. The two graduate students who co-organized the conference, Melissa Finn and ArshavezMozafari, did an excellent job in choosing papers that highlighted the veil’smulti-faceted appearances both in contemporary society and academic discoursesas something that is under-theorized and overlooked at the same time.The event’s advertising and signage played with the tropes of overwrittenand overlooked, suggesting that veiled women can be both silenced andsubjected to “therapeutic, punitive attention” (Edward Said, Covering Islam,xxxv-vi). For example, www.veiledconstellations.com shows two facelesswomen veiled in black, a torrent of water flooding the scene and pouring overthem and through the ovals where their faces should be. This serves as a kindof natural disaster or Armageddon trope on the body of Muslim women. Aprominent poster pictured a profiled woman wearing hijab, her face overwrittenwith overlapping Arabic words, while alternating pink lines radiatefrom behind her face, as if it were giving off light. A third poster offers thecommon image of the exotic woman behind-the-veil, a partial photo of awoman wearing niqab, her perfectly arched eyebrows perhaps challengingthe viewer to respond with the intrigued gaze, the desire to unveil her. Whilethese posters meant to undo tired images of Muslim women, their ambiguousnature sometimes reinforced those very stereotypes ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.004 |
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".