Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I draw on standpoint theory to center the lived experiences of those at the margins and challenge dominant Western scholarship on women, self-help, and media. I apply Lauren Berlant’s concept of juxtapolitical publics to explore how Syrian diasporic women use digital media to navigate survival and build community in contexts of displacement—without necessarily engaging in formal or overtly recognized political activism. Based on interviews with the co-founders of two digital communities, Syrische Frauen in Deutschland (SFD) and Let's Stand Again (LSA), I examine the mechanisms and motivations that led to their creation, as well as the internal dynamics of the admin teams that manage these pages. This paper contributes to conversations on digital feminist futurities by highlighting the participants’ efforts to build communities and networks of knowledge, care, and support. These efforts not only challenge existing power structures in their lives but also help imagine alternative futures—acts that can be understood as political because they expose broader systems of domination shaping marginalized women’s experiences.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".