Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Though the story of the sexual contract emerged through studies of canonical male writers, that approach risks erasing women’s agency from view. It also detaches our understanding of the sexual contract and its regulatory institutions from the lived experiences and political insights of its subjected class. Reading through the perspectives of the contract’s male architects, in other words, renders women silent in a story about their own subordination. This chapter proposes an alternative: working with the extant writings of Harriet Taylor Mill (HTM), it recovers women as complex agents in the story of the sexual contract. Drawing on what I call HTM’s “experiential politics”—a politics derived through critical examinations of the everyday—the argument follows her study of marriage and motherhood in nineteenth-century England. Her observations outline how these institutions constructed women as subjects of the sexual contract, as well as the ways in which women consciously worked against and alongside their regulations. Recovering HTM’s experiential politics as a lens through which to understand the sexual contract can thus recenter women as political actors in the story. In so doing, the argument raises important questions about how the intellectual borders of the history of political thought are defined, and about the diverse range of resources that lies beyond them.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.002 |
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".