Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of gaining recognition and treatment for a medical condition involves multiple stages where knowledge is negotiated along the way. This is particularly true for endometriosis, or “endo,” a chronic condition affecting one in ten menstruating individuals. In this article, I present a phenomenology of key epistemic practices involved in the journey toward knowledge about endo, based on interviews with fifteen individuals diagnosed with endometriosis in Sweden. These lived practices constitute what I call endo episteme and demonstrate how knowledge is gained, negotiated, or lost. Drawing on Miranda Fricker’s notion of epistemic injustice and Axel Honneth’s theory of recognition, I conceptualize the following practices: comparing-with, expressive uptake, a pedagogy of pain, the struggle for diagnosis, an epistemology of ignorance, and epistemic activism. Together, these practices shape the crucial processes of becoming a knower, becoming a patient, and becoming knowledge in relation to endo. This work contributes to feminist and social philosophy by enriching the frameworks provided by Fricker and Honneth, and it introduces novel concepts to deepen our understanding of the experiences of endo patients. The analysis of endo episteme emphasizes the central role of epistemic practices for the misrecognition of a gendered illness affecting millions worldwide.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.010 |
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".