The politics of engagement: Racialized women building alliances across differences in a women's centre.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following thesis explores relationships between racialized women in their efforts to rebuild an existing women’s centre in Vancouver, British Columbia. Eleven women, including myself, with differing histories and life experiences came together as a collective to create a women’s centre committed to working on issues of anti-racism. State policies and practices instrumental in shaping women’s lives and work sequentially affected group processes. Emergent themes indicate that racialized women’s efforts at group formation are influenced by socio-political constructions of ‘race’ and other markers of identity that are constituted through state policies and practices. Women’s efforts to bridge divides through the use of terms such as ‘marginalized women’ conceal inequities and shifting power dynamics within the group. Developing a women’s centre committed to ideals of anti-racism necessitates identifying commonalities and differences, negotiating inter-group relationships through ongoing dialogue, and pushing for state accountability and support.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.046 | 0.033 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".