Bibliographic record
Abstract
For the last ten years, feminist historians have been engaged in extensive debate about the history of feminism. The very limited interest in earlier feminist movements which was evident among those interested in women’s studies in the early and mid-1970s (see e.g. Lerner, 1969), has given way to an intense and constantly increasing interest in every aspect of the theory and the politics of all known feminists and all known women’s movements. Scholars working in the field have greatly expanded the range of questions and issues which are encompassed in discussion of the history of feminism, so that it has now become central to the study of women’s history. Until the late 1970s, those historians engaged in the study of feminist movements concentrated on the various campaigns which were mounted in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to achieve political and legal rights for women. Feminism within this framework was actually defined simply as ‘the deliberate attempt to achieve equality between the sexes in the political, economic and domestic spheres’ (Banks and Banks, 1965). While this framework continues to exist (e.g. Evans, 1979), it is increasingly coming to occupy a marginal position within the field, while the question of feminist theory and feminist analyses, of women’s support networks and independent activities have been given much greater prominence. As a result, the scope of discussions of feminism within an historical framework has become much broader, while its subject matter has been greatly enriched. Feminist political goals and strategies have been recognised as simply one aspect of a very much more complex phenomenon and are now studied in relation to broader questions about the ways in which women have organised their lives, analysed their experiences, and coped with the many situations and problems which they face.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.529 | 0.377 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".