Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Feminist social theories, especially intersectional and decolonial ones, have been footnotes at best in practice-oriented research in international relations. This disciplinary exclusion of gender studies’ concepts from “international practice theories” (IPTs) or the "practice turn" has marginalized inquiries into power and reflexivity in action. As a result, IPTs have failed to theorize how practitioners’ reflexivity is shaped by local manifestations of systemic lines of difference like race, gender, coloniality, or class. This Theory Note argues that intersectional and decolonial feminist approaches can address this gap. We demonstrate that positionality and privilege condition practical reflexivity by shaping (1) normative interpretations of the world, (2) the content of social critique, and (3) the reception of such critique. Taking feminists as foundational theorists of international practices is critical to addressing some ontological challenges encountered by current IPT scholarship. In this Theory Note, we develop a productive conversation between the two bodies of literature around concepts of background knowledge and competence, which allows for a better understanding of the interplay of structural power and individual reflexivity in everyday interactions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".