Aboriginal women and categorization : themes in feminist theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The topic of this essay concerns the categorization of Aboriginal women understood in the context of feminist social theory. The initial phase of analysis is an identification and elucidation of a theoretical issue in current feminist debate. Specific analysis is offered of the gender/difference debate in terms of its conceptual tensions and plausible resolutions. The outcome identifies the need for a methodology which justifies both general concepts (e.g., "women," "gender") as well as those particular conceptualizations applicable to differences. The next phase of the analysis connects these theoretical concerns to an important social problem by an elucidation of the way in which the issues implicit in the gender/difference debate are applicable to feminist criminology, notably those concerns surrounding the category "incarcerated Aboriginal women." The third phase of explanatory support for this thesis appeals to a contemporary writer's interpretation of Max Weber's view of "ideal types" as a way to elucidate the meaning and justification of categories used by feminist social theorists. This view is found applicable to the feminist categories implicit in the gender/difference debate and specifically in the manner in which it illuminates the category of "incarcerated Aboriginal woman." In the final phase, a summation is provided of the use of Weber's ideal type in enhancing feminine discourse and revealing the misrepresentation involved in the category, "incarcerated Aboriginal woman." The category has functioned in a misleading way to characterize Aboriginal women as different, marked and inferior; a misrepresentation which is ineffective in promoting meaningful social practice and policy initiatives.
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 | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".