MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Establishing Feminist Perspectives on War, 1969–1972

2017· book-chapter· en· W4252345977 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jessica M. Frazier

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of North Carolina Press eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCommunism, Protests, Social Movements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGender studiesFeminismContext (archaeology)Political scienceWhite (mutation)Viet namWorld War IISociologyHistoryLawEthnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conflict before, during, and after the Indochinese Women’s Conferences (IWC) in Canada in 1971 forced women's liberationists invested in hosting the IWC to contemplate why war was an important feminist issue. Before the conference even began, white women's liberationists debated the relationship between sexism and imperialism and fostered a rethinking of war's relationship to women and society. Much of the literature on second-wave feminism overlooks the international context, but I argue that the circumstances of the Viet Nam war generated feminist perspectives on military actions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.022
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.052
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of North Carolina Press eBooksSame topicCommunism, Protests, Social MovementsFrench-language works237,207