The Feminist Consciousness Raising Circle as Pedagogical Form in Suzanne Lacy and Julia London’s Freeze Frame (1982)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cet article analyse un projet de pratique sociale, Freeze Frame: Room for Living Room (1982), par rapport à sa situation pédagogique. Pour la performance culminant dans un magasin de meubles, Suzanne Lacy et Julia London ont réparti, en dix-sept cercles, cent-vingt participantes qui étaient initialement « figées », pour passer au mode de la conversation à leur signal. Le projet se proposait de surmonter l’aliénation du public face aux stéréotypes sur les femmes, mais les dynamiques de pouvoir étaient telles que le principal axe pédagogique du projet reposait sur les groupes en conversation, qui ont été modélisés d’après les interventions féministes éveillant les consciences dans les années 1970. En étudiant ses projets subséquents, on peut voir comment Lacy a intégré cette forme de pédagogie féministe dans son développement du « new genre public art ». Freeze Frame doit être considéré comme un exemple clé du rôle de la pédagogie féministe dans l’histoire de l’art pédagogique.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".