Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finally it seems the academic study of hijab has come of age. The contributorsto this collection neither treat it as an object of curiosity or derision, nor wonderat Muslimahs’ “false consciousness”; rather, they treat this “piece of cloth” andthe accompanying dress code as a “normal” object of academic enquiry. Forexample, they expand the investigation to include attire for modest Jewish andChristian women, as well as for secular women who dress in similar ways albeitfor different reasons. The title captures this broad focus by using modest, ratherthan limiting the focus to the hijab. While some Jewish and Christian womenalso dress modestly, discursive politics only label the hijab as oppressive.It is refreshing to read academic studies that treat the hijab with the samerespect that they do modest Jewish or Christian dress codes. This is not to saythat the book necessarily endorses or advocates modest dress, which it mostcertainly does not, but only that its contributors (e.g., a journalist and a paneldiscussion with bloggers, designers, and entrepreneurs) study in a sociologicalway the different meanings behind religious dress while maintaining respectfor those they study. Even Elizabeth Wilson’s “Can We Discuss This?,” whichfinds secular women’s recourse to modest dress depressing (“the human body,clothed or unclothed, is a cause for celebration” [p. 171]) and asks secular feministsto “fight their corner” (p. 171), respectfully summarizes the rationale behindmodest dress in order to argue against that very rationale.The contributors also link the study of modest dress with the concept of“fashion,” which is a matter of women who want to dress modestly but haveto look long and hard for nice, fashionable clothing that meets their standards.But as Lewis (“Introduction”) and others, like arts journalist Liz Hoggard(“Modesty Regulators: Punishing and Rewarding Women’s Appearances inMainstream Media”) note, the mainstream fashion industry does not treatmodest dress as “fashion.” Therefore, some Jewish, Christian, and Muslimwomen entrepreneurs have opened stores as well as designed and sold theirown creations to those who want to dress modestly and yet be stylish and fashionable.By investigating the link between fashion and modest dress moreclosely, the book provides a very refreshing analysis of modest dress. Afterall, we receive the obfuscations of “oppressed” or “false consciousness”through the mainstream fashion lens.Lewis argues that the Internet has allowed this niche market to blossom ...
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".