Girlhood During Wartime: Utilizing Testimonial Literature to Reframe Security and Vulnerability Through a Feminist Lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The field of Security Studies has begun to explore how women experience war differently from men, but there is still limited research on how girls experience war differently from women (Kearney 95). The English translations of the autobiographical and episodic writings of Anne Frank and Nellie Campobello document personal experiences of girlhood during war, revealing not only how conflict affects the lives and development of girls and the communities that surround them, but also how issues of war, security, and vulnerability have gendered dimensions. An analysis of the translated works of The Diary of Anne Frank and Cartucho by Nellie Campobello, using the frameworks of Literature and Girlhood Studies, Security Studies, and Feminist Theory, provides insight into how girls experience, interpret, and represent changes during war. Likewise, this research acknowledges the importance of considering the politics of place when discussing the testimonies of girls and the contexts from which they originate (Mitchell and Rentschler 3). Cartucho and The Diary of Anne Frank encourage us to think about security and vulnerability through a feminist lens. Both Nellie’s and Anne’s families/communities exemplify the necessary strategy, planning, negotiating, and care associated with “maternal thinking” (Cohn 54), allowing for the conceptualization of girls’ security outside of patriarchal conceptions of safety that only consider the public sphere once they are forced into the domestic sphere by war.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".