Reflections on Gender and Geography (1995)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CLASS AND OTHER AXES OF DIVISION One strand of change within class analysis over the years, and one that is widely if not universally reckoned to have represented “progress”, has been the increasing attention paid to the intersection of class with, or its incorporation of, other axes of social differentiation and inequality. […] It also seems clear […] that the debate over what one might call the “depth” of the relationship between class and other axes, has shifted. On the whole, it seems, the claims now being made are for a deeper level of interaction. At a number of points it is argued, for instance, that not only are social classes in their social outcomes empirically gendered or racialized but so too are the processes of class formation themselves. Thus Anne Witz, focusing on gender, provides a detailed explication of this in her examination of occupational structures, arguing that “gender matters in a further , more embedded, sense that has much more to do with the processes and mechanisms … underlying the historical specificities of forms of the social division of labour, of which occupational structure is one aspect” (p. 43). In other words, the construction of occupational positions must be taken to be part of class theory, and not assumed to be pre-given to it, and moreover that process of construction is itself gendered. For these reasons, she argues, “we need a new concept of class formation in order to describe the processes and mechanisms whereby occupational structures of ‘places’ emerge and gendered ‘persons’ come to be associated with them over time and, indeed, how these two processes are not necessarily sequential” (p. 43). Now, there are a number of ways in which such processes and mechanisms may operate, and both Witz and other authors in the collection engage with a range of them. There is, for instance, the way in which the bureaucratic career has been constructed as a male career. There is the dependence of career jobs on the existence of routine and non-career jobs, the former held more by men, the latter more by women.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".