Bibliographic record
Abstract
As Audre Lorde writes, ‘there is no such thing as a single-issue struggle because we do not lead single-issue lives’ (see Sister outsider, New York: Penguin Random House, 1984). Recognizing this, Joyce Kaufman and Kristen Williams advocate for the adoption of intersectionality theory in International Relations (IR) in their latest co-authored book. Their aim to bring intersectionality into the discipline of IR is both laudable and necessary. Despite these good intentions, the authors do not engage with the substantial literature on intersectionality. In the introduction, they dedicate only one page to explaining the concept of intersectionality (p. 5). This brevity is reflected in their approach to intersectionality analysis in the rest of the book. In each chapter, they cover a lot of ground but only apply a surface-level intersectionality analysis. A narrower-yet-deeper level of analysis could strengthen their argument. In their one-page discussion of intersectionality, they define it through the work of Kimberlé Crenshaw, who is credited with coining the term in her 1989 article ‘Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex’ (University of Chicago Legal Forum, vol. 1, 1989). Crenshaw has undoubtedly made a significant contribution to the scholarship and popularization of intersectionality. However, she is just one of many scholars whose work must be referenced and analysed in discussions of the concept. The authors overlook or fail to recognize the many Black feminist scholars (such as bell hooks and Audre Lorde) and Black activists (like abolitionist Sojourner Truth and the Black feminist organization, the Combahee River Collective) whose intellectual contributions and labour shaped the concept of intersectionality. Given the wide literature and debates on intersectionality, a single page cannot adequately represent the concept or its scholarship.
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 | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".