Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this play of paradox, only the female stands in the flesh, both mother and mother-dispossessed.This problematizing of gender places her, in my view, out of the traditional symbolics of female gender, and it is our task to make a place for this different social subject.In doing so, we are less interested in joining the ranks of gendered femaleness than gaining the insurgent ground as female social subject.-Hortense Spillers, 'Mama's baby, Papa's maybe' 1This essay focuses on three interconnected images of a woman in Dutch-occupied Brazil: a preliminary sketch, a finished painting, and an amateur sketch copied after the painting.These pictures are elusive: the indeterminate qualities of the sketch are difficult to decipher; the painting's plethora of divergent symbols resists decoding; and the copy of the painting confusingly alters the original.2 Instead of endeavouring to resolve pictorial ambiguities, this article interrogates the artistic processes deployed by artists in their attempts to invent racialized and gendered categories of human identity for women who were being taken captive and forcibly displaced from Africa to Brazil by the Dutch West India Company (WIC).As Hortense Spillers has argued, representations of enslaved women are themselves a mode of displacement, as they place these women 'out of the traditional symbolics of female gender' .Artistic displacement disavows but also replicates the atrocities that were committed against untold numbers of women whose lives, communities, and worlds were devastated by the agents of the WIC.While the imagery attempts to reduce a captive woman to the status of a living piece of property, in what follows, I ask if pictorial irresolution can also direct awareness to what Spillers calls 'the insurgent ground' , which is a place that lies beyond the descriptive powers of the violating image. DisplacementPicturing captive women in Brazil
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.121 | 0.027 |
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".