Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the early histories of the feminist art movement as it was developing in various urban centres across the United States and Canada, with emphasis on the material sites of making and their implications for the constructions of history that have attached to such physical sites of the Los Angeles Woman’s Building, Montreal’s La Centrale Galerie Powerhouse, and A.I.R. Gallery in New York City. I consider how in subsequent decades of historicising the movement, well documented through oral histories, exhibitions, and online repositories, former participants have commented on this engagement with form and materials as an arduous yet essential part of the process of recognising themselves as artists, while form and materials coalesced into some of the most emblematic historical containers for feminist art production. I consider how alternative institutions negotiated visibility and recognition with the changing makeup of the neighbourhoods in which they were located, and how subcultural communities address victimisation of other local communities by gentrification, and their potential complicity in this process. This chapter also critiques how certain feminist art histories have become hegemonic and turns attention to more marginalised histories of feminist art spaces that served as correctives and created additional enclaves for feminist art production for racialised artists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.012 |
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".