The American Suffrage Movement Remembered and Erased: A Cross-Look at the Portrait Monument and the Nineteenth Amendment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nineteenth-century monuments of colonial figures have in recent years sparked numerous controversies. An alternative to their dismantlement has emerged: the erection of new monuments to oppressed groups, by trading the formal qualities of authority and grandeur for those of abstractness and multivocality. This thesis casts a critical eye on the new monument’s capacity to further openness of meaning and invite the engagement of its public. It does so by studying a notorious suffrage monument in the United States, the Portrait Monument, whose radical aesthetics originally conveyed both the formal and more substantive visions of equality vindicated by suffragists. Bringing insights from a related constitutional monument to suffrage, the Nineteenth Amendment, it argues that the Portrait Monument has been reduced to the spectacle-like victory of enfranchisement. The diverse normative commitments of suffragism have been erased, and the nuances between race and gender relations within the suffrage movement have been overlooked.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".