Bibliographic record
Abstract
Taking an expansive notion of what is a “veil” and recognizing its immemorialrelationship to sacredness, Jennifer Heath has put together a wonderfulcollection of essays about it. The twenty-one female contributors considerthe veil from a variety of viewpoints: academic, personal memoir, and artistic.Her introduction and epilogue presents the book’s overall goal and asummation. The main argument is that “the veil” has been (and will remain)part of human society, in countless cultures and religions, for thousands ofyears. It can be a piece of cloth, a mask, or even related to the mystery of nature (as in the ancient Greek goddess Nyx [Night], drawing the veil ofdarkness across earth, while Selene [Moon] rises wearing a veil [p. 5].).”Current debates over veiling focus only on Islamic veiling and its relationshipto women’s oppression, which politicizes and narrows the understandingof this practice.There is no singular truth to “the veil,” Heath suggests, and that is preciselythe feeling one gets, for after reading the entire collection, one is nowiser to “the” meaning of “the” veil. The “truth” of the veil, rather, is thatthe current debate over it (does it or does it not oppress women?) detractsfrom the real issues women face: ...
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".