Bibliographic record
Abstract
For almost a decade, Gabrielle Moser and Helena Reckitt have co-led intergenerational feminist groups focused on collective reading, writing, and research: the EMILIA-AMALIA Working Group in Toronto, Canada, and the Feminist Duration Reading Group in London, UK. Though they each have maintained independent curatorial practices, these groups have drawn the authors back, time and again, because of the opportunity they provide to curate—as well as read, write, and think—with others. In this short reflection the authors discuss their efforts to stop working as part of these groups, and their failures to step away. Identifying the benefits of thinking and curating with others, they explore the particular energies, practices, and urgencies of working within, and on behalf of, long-term feminist collectives.
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 | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.045 |
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".