Pluralizing social reproduction approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of social reproduction (SR) has gained renewed interest in the past decade. Discussed and elaborated by generations of feminists, the concept offers a rejection of productivism and the possibility of (re)telling the history of capitalism and its contemporary dynamics through the work and practices of “life making.” Yet, it is undeniable that much of the “old” and “new” theorizing around SR comes predominantly from the Global North. Hence, we argue, a pluralizing of SR approaches (SRAs) is needed. This article draws on existing debates on SR to pluralize their theoretical premises, disciplinary boundaries, and empirical reach to suggest a global progressive agenda centered on SRAs that is able to speak to the challenges and complexities of processes of life making worldwide. Foregrounding such complexity, the article considers conceptual issues, argues that location is central to pluralizing SRAs, and discusses the associated methodological and political questions. We conclude that pluralizing SRAs through paying attention to location is the first step toward identifying the multiple and heterogeneous ways in which processes of SR are structured and operate under capitalism and toward developing solidarities able to challenge the oppressions of global capitalism and reclaim life-making activities and spaces.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".