MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390273512 · doi:10.1080/09612025.2023.2299066

‘It is because we could not write that it came to you’: women's history in testimonial narratives of resistance

2023· article· en· W4390273512 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen s History Review · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical and Contemporary Political Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTestimonialResistance (ecology)HistoriographyNarrativeAgency (philosophy)IdeologyGender studiesPower (physics)PeasantHistorySociologyPolyphonyRepresentation (politics)LiteratureSocial sciencePolitical scienceLawArtPoliticsPedagogyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For feminist historiography, polyphonic women's testimonials of resistance struggles present several critical questions, most importantly about the mediating role of the feminist intellectuals who conduct the interviews, translate, edit, write, and analyse the testimonies. The extended editorial commentaries in a collection of testimonies by women who participated in an armed peasant revolt in India from 1945 to 1951 traces and critiques the assumptions and disciplinary agendas the intellectuals bring to their women's history project. We Were Making History: Women and the Telangana Uprising (1989) throws light not only on the uneven relations of power, agency, and communication that undergird testimonial production, but also the ideologies of gender and community that stand guard over the self-representation of the testimonial narrators.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.153 · 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