Bibliographic record
Abstract
Let us imagine this situation for a moment: In the universities and centers of research, learning, and advocacy on women and gender, the majority of courses and programs are about health and medicine, demographic patterns, voting behaviors, family relations, and individual roles, lifestyles, and places of residence.There is data-rich empirical research on gender inequality, work, and income, and occasional but ambivalent attention paid to political activism, international and multicultural dimensions, and media imagery.But outside of a few writers and graduate students, very few resources are directed to theoretical issues of agency discourse, the body, and sexuality; or the history of the women's movement; or feminist treatments of film, art, spirituality, transgender relationships, prisons, domestic violence, or race.Thinkers from Simone de Beauvoir to Judith Butler are rarely part of required reading lists, while terms such as "feminist epistemology" or "intersectionality" and well-trod critiques of the medicalization, deviantization, and criminalization of women are hardly mentioned.Only a few sessions at major conferences on sex and gender are usually permitted on discourse, narrative, resistance, bodies, governmentality, and textuality, and even so get lumped together as 'postmodern theory' or derided as inappropriately 'political.'In this imaginary world, leading researchers believe that their anti-sexist research on women, however uncritical, is a sufficient indication of their radical identity and ideological solidarity with all suffering women.And traditional mainstream psychological, sexological, and medical fields are still the authorities despite the feminist movement's exposure of the narratives of patriarchal power underlying their scientific truths.Would we or our students tolerate this situation of such embarrassing backwardness?Yet, this is what we face in age/aging studies today, where aging research and teaching are akin to the imaginary situation I present above, the difference being that it would be unacceptable in women's/ gender/sexuality studies.In far too many of our universities and learning
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 | 0.058 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.031 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".