Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflecting on two recent initiatives from the Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) - the #PracticeSolidarity campaign and the 13th International AWID Forum held in Brazil in September 2016 - Semanur Karaman considers the elements in creating plural solidarities for women, trans* and intersex activisms and struggles. Through drawing on her own experience and that of her fellow activists, she notes firstly the importance of viewing the issue through the lens of intersectionality. She goes on to describe how solidarities can be created and stresses the importance of tailor made approaches as well as the requirement for trust, openness and creativity. Semanur does not shy away from setting out the tensions that can be involved in this process - for example the sense of unfairness which can manifest or the fact that solidarity is not evenly distributed across the struggles and movements. Drawing on inspirational examples throughout, Semanur concludes by emphasising that solidarities must be well-being-centered and accessible to all women, trans* and intersex activists regardless of language, socio- economic factors or other obstacles.
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 | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.061 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.040 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".