Re-imagining feminist thought from the prism of decoloniality: towards a decolonial relational feminism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Feminist thought, in its essence, advances the emancipation of women from oppressive systems of power while fostering gender equality. However, there is a dominant Western-centrism embedded in it, and like most Western-centric knowledge frameworks, there is a disconnect between the presupposition of universality and the location of its knowledge production. By asking, how can we reimagine feminist thought from the prism of decoloniality? This paper uses decoloniality to recentre Global South voices in feminist thought. It makes use of a qualitative methodology, interview findings, and a critical analytical framework as its method of inquiry. It uses relational feminism to demonstrate the Western-centrism in feminist thought. By engaging in a decolonial reimagining of traditional relational feminism to enrich its relevance for Global South theorising, this paper develops a decolonial relational feminist theory that draws on perspectives of women from the Global South to re-centre their voices in feminist thought.
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 | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".