Doing Intersectionality. Varieties of Feminist Practices in France and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, I explore how feminist organizations in two different national contexts, France and Canada, address the issue of intersectionality in their daily practices of advocating and providing services to women. I argue that although intersectionality is now regarded as the primary way to conceptualize the fact that power relations are complex and multidimensional – a problem that feminist movements and theories have always had to address - it is not the primary repertoire that all feminist organizations use in their day-to-day practices. In this paper I propose an inductive typology of four repertoires that women’s groups might mobilize to conceptualize the social situation, the specific needs and the political interests of minority women. I show that depending on its orientation towards advocacy or service, and depending on the political context – multicultural Canada and Republican France - women’s rights NGOs tend to use some repertoires rather than others. I conclude by underlining that there are various ways to think about intersectionality, but that they do not have the same political consequences for minority women and for the prospects of feminist coalitions in multicultural liberal states.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.051 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".