MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245134547 · doi:10.1093/cww/vpv004

Willful Subjects

2015· article· en· W4245134547 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueContemporary Women s Writing · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPosthumanist Ethics and Activism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativePhenomenonSociologyCultural phenomenonPhenomenology (philosophy)QueerAestheticsEpistemologyGender studiesLiteratureArtPhilosophySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In her Queer Phenomenology , Sara Ahmed suggests, “orientations are about how we begin; how we proceed from “here,” which affects how what is “there” appears, how it presents itself” (8). Ahmed’s Willful Subjects is about reorienting our relations to willfulness (48) and turning us toward an interest in the will as a cultural phenomenon in need of theorizing, by asking “what is it doing” (17). Through a kaleidoscopic whirl of literary, philosophical, and cultural representations, Willful Subjects makes the will present and active. Ahmed’s diverse discussions provide a veritable romp through the Western history of the will. This multiplicity of texts and images, including killjoy feminists (152), “willful women, unwilling to get along” (2), proceed from one particular starting point: a narrative that serves to orient the appearance of the will – Grimm’s 1884 story of “The Willful Child.” Ahmed explores this story in detail (1) and artfully returns to it throughout the book.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.393

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.225 · 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