Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the decades following the Second World War, women from all walks of life became increasingly frustrated by the world around them. Drawing on long-standing political traditions, these women bound together to revolutionize social norms and contest gender inequality. In Montreal, women activists inspired by Red Power, Black Power, and Quebec liberation, among other social movements, mounted a multifront campaign against social injustice. Countercurrents looks beyond the defining waves metaphor to write a new history of feminism that incorporates parallel social movements into the overarching narrative of the women’s movement. Case studies compare and reflect on the histories of the Quebec Native Women’s Association, the Congress of Black Women, the Front de libération des femmes du Québec, various Haitian women’s organizations, and the Collectif des femmes immigrantes du Québec and the political work they did. Bringing to light previously overlooked archival and oral sources, Amanda Ricci introduces a new cast of characters to the history of feminism in Quebec. The book presents a unique portrait of the resurgence of feminist activism, demonstrating its deep roots in Indigenous and Black communities, its transnational scope, and its wide-ranging inspirations and preoccupations. Advancing cross‐cultural perspectives on women’s movements, Countercurrents looks to the history of women’s activism in Montreal and finds new ways of defining feminist priorities and imagining feminist futures.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.116 | 0.022 |
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".