The Weaving is Us: Decolonizing the Tools for the Feminist Imagination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article documents weaving as a decolonizing epistemic tool for feminist futures that emerges from the work of our collective – the Feminist Imaginary Research Network. As a collective of feminist adult educators who work in both the academy and women’s museums, weaving challenges the centrality of rationality over other ways of knowing and being. Following the teachings of Indigenous women thinkers and artists, including the work of some of our members, we frame weaving as an epistemic tool and aesthetic language for future-making. Weaving acts upon us as a mirror of our history, as an antidote against the supremacy of rationality, and as a tool for collective projects of transformation. As a decolonizing tool, weaving gathers us around Indigenous women’s traditional knowledge, but also confronts us with the question of our obligations when the teachings of weaving have been offered to us – what is our responsibility to the work, to each other, and to this emergent knowledge?
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".