Blithe Spirits: Absent British Women Couturiers – The Rahvis Sisters (1928 – 1981)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This practice-led research project explores the Rahvis Sisters as ‘Absent British Women Couturiers’ in the established canon. As my title states, here they become ‘Blithe Spirits’ located in the virtual world. My project is multifarious: it repeats, returns and is polymorphic, in approach, methodology and outputs. I start with the Rahvis Sisters virtually, as conduits for a practice grounded in an online photograph of Carla Lehmann wearing a Rahvis jacket evocative of military uniform. I then purchase and unpick a military jacket and make a pattern and toile from its parts to philosophically explore dismantling, disseminating and reworking a hegemonic system, microcosmically and metaphorically. I then work with an online maker to reenact a production process with inherent power imbalance. Returning to the online photograph when remaking the sample jacket, I navigate the image’s ‘missing’ back and lining as an exploration of acts of resistance when living within patriarchy. The toile and sample jacket are supported by a photographic record of the processes undertaken, together with a somatic and transgressive text which serves as a form of documentation of my dialogue with the military jacket, the image of the Rhavis jacket and the range of material processes engaged in throughout the creation of the toile. This forms a linguistic counter to the more academic form as practice and reiterates the challenge to orthodoxy. Thus, reminding and engaging the reader of and the viewer in, the material activities of designing, making and the performative, as with bodily acts of garment makers and wearers. The project is framed by a feminist rationale and supports a new methodological framework that invites the Rhavis into the research process. I call this a metis-methodology, a developing experimental approach manifesting itself in a variety of registers, haptic, linguistic and visual, that challenge traditional and revisionist histories when a practice-led project. This project offers a methodological and material-virtual-linguistic means by which to explore ‘absented’ and ‘silenced’ marginalised women creatives, such as the Rahvis Sisters, proposing an object-based materially-centered resistance to regulatory systems and constructs, so that a new antagonistic space I call ‘In Yearning’ for thinking with and through these women is built and held.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".