Bibliographic record
Abstract
Katharine Jenkins’s Ontology and Oppression helps bridge the chasm between discussions of social ontology in analytic metaphysics and treatments of injustice and oppression in social and political philosophy. In this commentary on Jenkins’s book, I address three main issues. First, I question a central innovation of the book—its espousal of a new form of pluralism about race and gender kinds, which posits that race and gender are not unitary kinds but can have three different types of manifestation in the social world. Second, I consider how Jenkins’s central notion of “ontic injustice” interacts with a prominent distinction between social kinds that have to be explicitly represented (“transparent”) and those that need not be represented (“opaque”). Third, I take up the issue of evaluative or normative considerations in social theorizing and their place in taxonomizing the social world. I ask whether, in rejecting what she calls the “ontology first” approach to theorizing about trans people, Jenkins stakes a position that opposes scientific categorization on the basis of nonepistemic values.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".