Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores how politically active Polish women starting in the late nineteenth century until the start of World War II viewed themselves and their duties vis-a-vis the Polish nation. It traces the women's movement in Poland from the first calls for women's right to work, to their eventual enfranchisement under a newly independent Polish state in 1918. Challenges to women's equality took many forms: men from both sides of the political spectrum viewed women's entry into the salaried workforce and the public sphere as largely undesirable and deployed a variety of arguments to reinforce traditional gender hierarchy. Yet many educated Polish women, even from conservative, Catholic perspectives, viewed their engagement in the public sphere as necessary work for the good of the Polish nation. This article uses letters, political pamphlets, and published works to explore how modern Polish women attempted to strike a balance between breaking and preserving traditional notions of gender in order to secure new rights for themselves in a volatile political atmosphere. While Polish women's groups differed on their vision of the ideal Polish state, they generally agreed that women's roles as mothers provided the moral legitimacy required to act in the public sphere. They successfully carved a space for themselves in the new Polish state of 1918 but remained marginalized in a separate and unequal status in the interwar period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".