Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to promote a view of designers making ethical-political choices. It introduces key concepts that feminist scholars contributed to our understanding of ethics and politics concerning the relationships between equality, difference, and social justice. The feminist ethics of care and responsibility builds on the centrality of relationships for women’s thinking. Joan Tronto emphasized the interrelatedness of an ethics of care with social justice arguing that the ways care is performed and institutionalized are deeply entangled with issues of power and inequality. There is also a connection between caretaking and the many forms of invisible work that socialist feminists claimed women do to maintain the paid labour force and their domestic labours that ensure social reproduction. The chapter concludes with observations about feminist politics drawing a line from ‘the personal is political’ to the ‘matrix of domination’, concepts that help us understand how power as a source of inequalities is organized on different levels and what to do to enable marginalized groups to ‘jump into the public sphere’, become visible, and have a voice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".