Advocating Women’s Rights in the Italian Periodical Press: Lidia Poët (1855–1949) and Teresa Labriola (1871–1941)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lidia Poët (1855–1949) and Teresa Labriola (1871–1941) were two pioneers of the fight for women’s rights in Italy. Despite being among the very first Italian women to graduate from the Faculty of Law at the University of Rome and the University of Torino, respectively, they were inescapably limited in the pursuit of professional careers. Inspired by their own personal experiences, both women started openly questioning the restricting values of patriarchal society and the lack of legal and political rights for women in their essays and conference presentations. Not only did they fight their individual battles by triggering public debate, but they also considered it their crucial task to create more awareness among the broader female population. Given the fact that the late nineteenth to early twentieth century was a particularly flourishing time for the periodical press, it is not surprising that both Poët and Labriola soon discovered the endless possibilities of magazines and newspapers. The aim of this essay is to illustrate how these two women turned to the periodical press and used it as a weapon in their quest for women’s legal rights. In addition, it explores the development of a nationalist feminism that emerged from their wartime writings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".