Public sciences, public enemies. Boundary work and cultural hegemony in public controversies between evolutionists and feminists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Social conflicts are often discussed in the form of public scientific controversies in knowledge societies. This paper analyzes several public controversies tackling issues of gender inequalities between evolutionists (evolutionary psychologists and evolutionary psychologically oriented journalists) and feminists (feminist scientists and journalists) in US media between the early 1980s and the early 2000s. The inquiry focuses on rhetorical strategies of “boundary work” participants used to make their point and strengthen their public authority on the issues discussed. By practicing boundary work, scientists distance themselves from ideology. It is suggested that Antonio Gramsci's works on hegemony and the intellectuals allows to think about intellectual's roles in ideological struggles in a different way: the public scientific controversies analyzed occurred at a time when “traditional” gender and family models had lost their hegemonic role and gender relations were rather thoroughly rearranged. They can thus be understood as part of a larger social struggle for cultural hegemony on issues of gender and sexuality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".