Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Although feminist theorizing on Muslim women's agency has come a long way, recent models reflect a one‐dimensional conception of agency that reinvigorates problematic binaries and undermines feminist politics. To address these limitations, the author focuses on the interpersonal arena where agency involves not only doing but also the cultivation and consolidation of relationships. Ethnographic data reveal three key findings: (1) Agency is multidimensional, encompassing both display work and the recruitment of others. (2) When we foreground agency's relational dimensions, binary conceptions fall apart—forms of agency that appear to involve compliance with dominant norms are revealed as also being resistant to an alternate set of norms favored by others. (3) Relational aspects of agency are socially patterned by social structures, such as class, that restrict marginalized actors from activating relationships in service to extension, a capacity to extend the locus of action over time and space. By examining these diverse dimensions of agency, the article underscores the connection between agency, exclusion, and inequality. This analysis not only challenges restrictive binaries within feminist thought but also opens up possibilities for feminist intervention.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".