Bibliographic record
Abstract
confined. designed. but credited? was created to illustrate the history, or lack thereof, of women in the graphic design profession. This zine explores the contributions of 10 key women to the field of graphic design. Analyzing and comparing the texts The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir, and Alms for Oblivion by Ellen Mazur Thomson brings attention to the disparities and struggles of career women. Beauvoir’s comment on existentialism focuses on navigating individualistic thinking with the tension between free will and societal constraints. Despite oppression and sexism, multiple women achieved professional status as graphic designers. However, women were forced into more “feminine” specialties at design schools such as the Bauhaus and/or were “lost” to history because, according to Thomson, they were not credited for their work. In addition, exploring the primary and secondary sources questions the definition of design itself and why the lack of clarity has made it difficult to identify women designers. Delivering this research in the form of a zine salutes one of the ways feminists communicate their views. The combination of photos, hand-drawn illustrations, and digitally rendered shapes & textures help point to the main ideas of each article. Overall, the zine captures key concepts of limitations within a male-dominated world, as well as the capacity, competence, and innovation of women in design. Created for the Feminist Theories and Foundations course (GEND219) and informed by my program, Bachelor of Design.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.021 |
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".