A Toolbox of Feminist Wonder: Theories and methods that can make a difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This one-day hybrid workshop builds on previous feminist CSCW workshops to explore feminist theoretical and methodological approaches that have provided us with useful tools to see things differently and make space for change. Since its inception over a decade ago, feminist HCI has progressed from the margins to mainstream HCI, with numerous references in the literature. Feminist HCI has also evolved to incorporate other critical HCI practices such as Queer HCI, participatory design, and speculative design. While feminist approaches have grown in popularity and become mainstream, it is getting more difficult to distinguish the feminist emancipatory core from other attempts of developing and improving society in various ways. In this workshop, we therefore want to revisit our feminist roots, where theory is a liberatory and creative practice, motivated by affect, curiosity, and wonder. From this standpoint, we consider which of our feminist tools can make a significant difference today, in a highly datafied world. The goal of this workshop is to; 1) create an inventory of feminist theories and concepts that have had an impact on our work as designers, educators, researchers, and activists; 2) develop a feminist toolbox for the CSCW community to strengthen our feminist literacy.
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 | 0.069 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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".