Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical feminist theorists have pointed out how the idea of the singular, revolutionary Act tends to reinforce masculinist and colonialist imaginaries. In this essay, I argue for the need to elaborate other ways of revolting. Through a reading of Saidiya Hartman’s Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments, I explore ways to consider the relationship between embodied acts of resistance and past bodies’ gestures, as a strategy to reformulate resistance away from the single Act, often enacted by an autonomous, male subject. In Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments, Hartman merges archival research with fictional storytelling, giving voice to young, black women in the United States in the early 20th century. I argue that, when reading Hartman’s text through feminist ontologies of interdependency, acts of revolt appear as collective gestures, re-appearing through time, rather than as singularevents. thus, this reading of Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments, demonstrates how we can rethink the singular Act of resistance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".