MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4375854835 · doi:10.16995/dscn.9572

Feminist Shadow Networks: 'Thinking, Talking, and Making' as Praxes of Relationality and Care

2023· article· en· W4375854835 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Brianna I. Wiens, Shana MacDonald, Aynur Kadir

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Studies / Le champ numérique · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShadow (psychology)SociologyAestheticsPsychologyArtPsychoanalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the face of the constraints and pressures of the neoliberal university, this article argues for the importance of feminist shadow networks as a response to the unequal academic grounds on which scholars and students are asked to situate themselves. Calling for such networks as a model of relationality, we suggest that critical friendship and careful support are necessary for addressing the exacerbated correlating class-, race-, and gender-based inequities that continue to haunt us. We outline three praxes of “think, talk, and make” that we, the Feminist Think Tank, a research-creation collective that advances work on feminist media, art, and design, rely on in our feminist shadow work. In the section on THINKING, we offer the guiding orientations to our work that are grounded in epistemologies of un-learning, feminist relationality, and critical friendship. Next, in TALKING, we discuss our approaches to collaboration, analysis, and community, which are nested within epistemologies of careful support and trust. Last, in MAKING, we outline recent projects that Feminist Think Tank has undertaken, offering examples of how we create our own digital feminist interventions from the space of the feminist shadow network. Overall, this work contributes to more careful and critical approaches to research, data, technological affordances, and feminist histories via our feminist shadow networks, offering alternative stories and ways of being in the academy.Face aux contraintes et aux pressions de l'université néolibérale, cet article défend l'importance des réseaux fantômes féministes comme réponse aux inégalités académiques sur lesquelles les chercheurs et les étudiants sont invités à se situer. En appelant à de tels réseaux comme modèle de relationnalité, nous suggérons qu'une amitié critique et un soutien attentif sont nécessaires pour aborder les inégalités exacerbées et corrélées basées sur la classe, la race et le genre qui continuent à nous hanter. Nous décrivons trois pratiques de "penser, parler et faire" sur lesquelles nous, The Feminist Think Tank, un collectif de recherche-création qui fait avancer le travail sur les médias, l'art et le design féministes, nous appuyons dans notre travail de l'ombre féministe. Dans la section PENSER, nous présentons les orientations qui guident notre travail et qui sont fondées sur les épistémologies du désapprentissage, de la relationnalité féministe et de l'amitié critique. Ensuite, dans la section PARLER, nous discutons de nos approches de la collaboration, de l'analyse et de la communauté, qui s'inscrivent dans des épistémologies de soutien attentif et de confiance. Enfin, dans MAKING, nous décrivons les projets récents entrepris par The Feminist Think Tank, en offrant des exemples de la manière dont nous créons nos propres interventions féministes numériques à partir de l'espace du réseau fantôme féministe. Dans l'ensemble, ce travail contribue à des approches plus prudentes et critiques de la recherche, des données, des possibilités technologiques et des histoires féministes par le biais de nos réseaux fantômes féministes, offrant des histoires et des manières alternatives d'être dans le monde académique.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.488

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Studies / Le champ numériqueSame topicInterdisciplinary Research and CollaborationFrench-language works237,207