“What is feminism?”: an exploratory study on women with intellectual disabilities and their views on feminism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This exploratory study investigates the intersection of feminism and intellectual disability. Despite the feminist movement’s commitment to inclusivity, women with intellectual disabilities often remain marginalized within feminist discourse and activism. This study aims to understand how women with intellectual disabilities perceive feminism, their identification with feminist movements, and the social issues they prioritize. Drawing on eight interviews with women in Alberta and Ontario, Canada, we identified four primary themes: varying degrees of familiarity with feminism, the feeling of being left behind by mainstream feminism, the importance of feminism for personal autonomy and rights, and the association of feminism with being an independent woman. Participants’ experiences highlighted a need for greater inclusion and understanding within feminist activism and scholarship, as many felt overlooked and unrecognized by the movement. Findings emphasize the critical role of self-advocacy among women with intellectual disabilities to influence change. The study calls for a more inclusive feminist ethos and practice that actively incorporates and advocates for the rights and needs of all women. By foregrounding the knowledge and experiences of women with intellectual disabilities, the research contributes to a redefined understanding of feminism that works to dismantle ableist barriers and advocates for diversity and equality.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".