Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book focuses on the enigmatic relationship between men and women, and in particular on the subordination of women by men in the work place. The main points of departure are that subordination is a relational phenomenon and should therefore be approached in a relational context and that the dynamics of relational behaviour primarily evolve through dialogue. The project facilitated and encouraged women and men to engage in more than 100 discussions about their daily relationships, carried out in the context of an intra- and inter-organizational action research project involving three organizations: a nuclear power plant, a school district and a postal district in a province of Sweden. The object was to allow for better mutual understanding and respect from an Irigarayan view where a substrate allows men and women to regard each other in their subjectivity without ‘reducing the other to same’. The reflective and analytical nature of this study shows the dynamics of the discussions and their effects on the interpersonal and organizational level. Ingrid Ljungberg van Beinum, D. Soc. Sc., studied at the universities of Uppsala and Leiden. She has lived and worked in Sweden, England, Holland, India and Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.011 |
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".