MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7020042219

Intergenerational Solidarity

2017· other· en· W7020042219 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEdge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University) · 2017
Typeother
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Diversity and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSolidarityFlourishingPoliticsFeminismWork (physics)Field (mathematics)Human sexuality
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

20 years ago I was one of the ‘new voices’ invited to contribute a short piece to Sandra Grey and Marian Sawer’s Women’s Movements: Flourishing or in Abeyance (2008) in that piece I asked “please remember that young women are not the leaders of tomorrow. We are leaders of the women’s movement today. However, do not think that this means that we want to do it without earlier generations of women’s movement activists” (Lewis, 2008, p147). Disappointingly, I'm still making the same argument, that young/er women’s voices and concerns within the women’s movement are too often overlooked, and old/er women need to contribute to making space for young/er women within our organisations – a practice that might be considered one of ‘intergenerational solidarity’. While solidarity has often been considered across race, sexuality and socio-economic groups (Segal, 2013), intergenerational solidarity is more commonly discussed in academic papers in terms of family relationships, rather than as a political practice. One of the few places in which there is a repeating interest in exploring questions of intergenerational work is within feminist organisations, and in journals with close ties to the women’s movement (Abeysekera, 2004, Alpizar and Wilson, 2005). A number of international women’s organisations, the World YWCA, AWID, Isis International, and Development Alternatives with Women for a New Era (DAWN) have ongoing programmes of work to address barriers to young women’s leadership in their organisations. Within the field of leadership studies, the implicit assumption is that our leaders are old, or at least old/er people. Carole A. MacNeil drew attention to this gap within leadership studies through her analysis of Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership noting that although the book reviews “five thousand leadership studies, there is nothing about youth as leaders or about leadership development for youth” (2006, citing Bass 1981). MacNeil’s reference to Stogdill’s handbook dates back to the original publication, however, a brief review of the 4th edition suggests little has changed, while there was one brief and positive mention of old/er leaders within the discussions of minority leaders, no discussion of young/er leaders was readily identifiable (Bass, 2008). But the idea that the under-representation of young people in leadership roles in organisations and civil society is a problem is one that is starting to gain momentum (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2014, United Nations Development Programme, 2013). The arguments as to why it is important that women’s voices are heard in civil society are well rehearsed (Childs and Lovenduski, 2013), and similar arguments can be made for young women, but rarely have been. In this paper I want to highlight why in order to strengthen campaigns such as girls education and child marriage we need to ensure that not only the voices of young women and girls are heard, but that their leadership within our movements and movement organisations are recognised and respected. And that in order to achieve this we will need to develop practices of intergenerational solidarity. References ABEYSEKERA, S. 2004. Social Movements, Feminist Movements, and the State: A Regional Perspective [Online]. Available: http://www.isiswomen.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=518:social-movements-feminist-movements-and-the-state-a-regional-perspective&catid=116&Itemid=452 [Accessed 7 November 2016]. ALPIZAR, L. & WILSON, S. 2005. Making waves: how young women can (and do) transform organizations and movements. Spotlight. Toronto: Association of Women in Development. BASS, B. M. 2008. Handbook of leadership: theory, research, and application, New York, Free Press. CHILDS, S. & LOVENDUSKI, J. 2013. Political Representation. In: WAYLEN, G., CELIS, K., KANTOLA, J. & WELDON, L. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. GREY, S. & SAWER, M. 2008. Women's movements: flourishing or in abeyance?, Routledge. INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION 2014. Youth Participation in National Parliaments. LEWIS, E. 2008. New Voices. In: GREY, S. & SAWER, M. (eds.) Women's movements: flourishing or in abeyance? Oxon, UK: Routledge. MACNEIL, C. A. 2006. Bridging generations: Applying "adult" leadership theories to youth leadership development. New Directions for Youth Development, Spring, pp27-43. SEGAL, L. 2013. Today, Yesterday & Tomorrow: Between Rebellion and Coalition Building. In: ROWBOTHAM, S., SEGAL, L. & WAINWRIGHT, H. (eds.) Beyond the fragments: Feminism and the making of socialism. London: Merlin Press. UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME 2013. Enhancing Youth Political Participation throughout the Electoral Cycle. New York: United Nations Development Programme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0130.017
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0010.022
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.117
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdge Hill University Research Information Repository (Edge Hill University)Same topicGender Diversity and InequalityFrench-language works237,207