MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4253773126 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14654547.v1

Who were the Hackney Flashers? The history and importance of a British Feminist Collective, 1974-1980

2021· preprint· en· W4253773126 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Dring

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)PoliticsOrder (exchange)Oral historySociologyVisual artsInequalityMedia studiesGender studiesHistoryPolitical scienceArtLawArchaeologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this project is to provide a resource for museum professionals who are working with materials related to the Hackney Flashers. The Hackney Flashers were a radical socialist-feminist collective that was active in northeast London in the 1970s. The goal is to provide a well-researched history of the collective, as well as address current issues surrounding exhibiting and archiving related materials. This has been done by balancing written sources with oral histories by surviving members of the collective. Imbedded in the Women’s Liberation Movement and the radical-feminist politics of 1970s Britain, the Hackney Flashers used photography to document women in their community in order to expose social inequality. Heavily influenced by the photomontages of John Heartfield, the collective collaged documentary photographs with cartoons, advertisements and text in order to provide a wider context than what documentary photography could provide on its own.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0160.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPolitical and Economic history of UK and US→French-language works237,207→