MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4241190001 · doi:10.3138/cras.40.2.259

“Join the Knitting Revolution”: Third-Wave Feminist Magazines and the Politics of Domesticity

2010· article· en· W4241190001 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elizabeth Groeneveld

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Review of American Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCrafts, Textile, and Design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplicityNexus (standard)PoliticsFeminismCraftPrivilege (computing)ConversationSociologyThird waveGender studiesMedia studiesAestheticsPolitical scienceLawVisual artsArtEngineeringPolitical economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The mid-1990s saw the rise of a new sub-genre of political magazine in the United States: the “third-wave” feminist periodical. A key feature of these publications is that they promote reclaiming and repoliticizing activities traditionally associated with the domestic sphere, particularly knitting. This paper critically examines and historically contextualizes the discourses on the “new” knitting in the letters to the editor, editorials, articles, and advertisements of third-wave feminist periodicals and argues that contemporary feminist craft cultures sit at a politically ambiguous nexus of privilege, complicity, and resistance. By historicizing third-wave periodicals' promotion of knitting, this paper sheds light on changing ways in which the domestic sphere has figured within the broader history of US feminism and suggests that, despite their appeals to the “new,” these periodicals are very much in conversation with what is, to some extent, an imagined feminist “past.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.028
Scholarly communication0.0130.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Review of American StudiesSame topicCrafts, Textile, and DesignFrench-language works237,207