Concerning feminism and feminine approaches to ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The feminine and the feminite approaches to ethics differ in their respective ontology, epistemology and political theory. Yet, advocates of both perspectives remain self-described 'feminists'--persons committed to furthering the interests of women. In this thesis the differences between the feminine and feminite approaches are articulated and it is argued that the feminine approach, rather than the feminite, serves best to represent the interests of women. Further, the feminite approach is critiqued as being a perspective that is too focused on group specific political concerns to qualify as an ethic. In support of the feminine approach, it is suggested that concerns and interests that are understood to be of particular interest to women are in fact matters that ought to be perceived as central concerns for the whole of society. The ontological and epistemological stance of the feminine approach to ethics is defined by the claim that women are enlightened in virtue of their distinct female experience. Based on this claim the feminine approach is enabled to develop an 'ethic of care'--which not only serves as a critique of male bias in traditional moral theory but also provides an alternative standard by which to evaluate and determine what constitutes the moral act.
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 | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".