Ties that bind: fashion, textiles, and gendered labour in South Asia today
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As in many parts of the world, throughout South Asia, the various steps in textile production have historically been gendered, with men and women performing their respective specialized jobs. The late twentieth century saw the erosion of these long entrenched gendered roles in the region’s textile/garment industries. As they assume new roles in the workforce, women face challenges, including discrimination and physical danger. How are women negotiating these challenges? How is women’s textile-based labour valued in South Asia today? As artisans of regional heritage textiles, do men and women exercise their creative agency and market their work differently? What support systems are in place to train new generations of heritage textile makers, advocate for garment factory workers, and educate young women from textile making communities? This introduction to the special edition on confluences of gender, labour, and textiles/fashion in contemporary South Asia lays out the questions posed above. It provides a brief overview of textile production in the subcontinent, focusing on makers, markets, the role of gendered labour, and the interventions the following articles make to the field. The authors of the articles in this edition – scholars of art history, sociology, anthropology, political science, media and gender studies, and a textile curator and founder of a textile-based Non-Governmental Organization – offer unique insight into the South Asian textile/garment industry from the vantage point of garment factory workers, activists, socially engaged artists, factory owners, heritage textile makers, and recyclers of discarded fabric.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".