It's about where we put our energy: Embodied Citation and the Feminist Duration Reading Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following conversation took part online over the course of several weeks in 2018 in response to an invitation from Madeleine Hodge, Clare Qualmann, and Amy Sharrocks to contribute to their newspaper ‘Daylight,’ which was published by the Wellcome Collection, London, in 2018, as part of their artistic residency, ‘Daylighting,’ at the Collection. A further invitation from curators Alexandra Balona and Sofia Lemos to contribute a chapter to their edited book Metabolic Rifts Reader, Berlin/Lisbon: Atlas Projectos, published in 2019, prompted an expanded version of our exchange. Due to the word lengths of the two publications, some 50% of the original exchange was cut. Here we share the full exchange. Contributors respond to the following posed by Helena Reckitt: - Why do you think reading and research groups like these are needed right now? - What has been important / meaningful to you about this particular group? - Do any particular Feminist Duration Reading Group meetings stand out for you? - What does the practice of embodied citation mean to you, in relation to activities of the FDRG and more broadly? - How does your work or practice aim to transmit feminist knowledge and build feminist culture within a collective context? - What aspects of feminist cultural history can current and younger generations of feminists learn from? - What are some key differences that emerge between some of the historical forms of feminism explored in the FDRG and current manifestations of feminism? The co-authors include regular participants in the FDRG, including those who initiated key events in the first three years of the group’s development, as well as occasional collaborators based outside London, in Glasgow (Laura Guy), Toronto (Gabby Moser), Sydney (Diana Baker Smith), and Beijing (Cinzia Cremona).
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 | 0.017 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.038 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".