Bibliographic record
Abstract
Queer linguistics has often been criticized as a field that has no application and is \nconcerned only with theoretical matters (Motschenbacher, 2010, p. 16). This applies theory to \nexamining the stereotypes that Americans may attribute to homosexual men. \nThough it has been shown that there is no such dialect as a gay one, there are features that \nare stereotypically associated with the speech of gay men. For the purpose of this study, three of \nthose features (the lisp, a raised pitch, and formal [–iŋ] endings) were examined in US and \nCanadian stand-up performances of heterosexual and homosexual Caucasian comedians in order \nto discover how salient the features might be in the US and Canada. Perception studies have \nexamined these features in the past (Smyth, Jacobs, & Rogers, 2003; Campbell-Kibler, 2007; \nVan Borsel, et. al., 2009). Though no definitive results were uncovered in these studies, there is \nsome evidence that people attribute these features to assumed gay speakers. \nEight Caucasian US and Canadian comedians' performances of "gay" speech were \nexamined and compared to their natural voices. Four comedians were homosexual, and four were \nheterosexual. All of the comedians were in their 20s and 30s. Data was collected on the \npronunciation of [s] vs. [s̪], mean frequency or pitch, and occurrences of formal [–iŋ] vs. \ninformal [–In] endings. \nFormal [–iŋ] vs. informal [–In] endings did not show any patterns, but this is likely due to \nthe relatively small number of occurrences. Comedians in the heterosexual group and the \nhomosexual group raised their pitch when performing a gay voice. The heterosexual group, \noverall, raised their pitch more often than the homosexual group. The lisp was only employed by \none homosexual comedian, and it was employed by half of the heterosexual comedians.Formal [–iŋ] vs. informal [–In] endings did not show any patterns, but this is likely due to \nthe relatively small number of occurrences. Comedians in the heterosexual group and the \nhomosexual group raised their pitch when performing a gay voice. The heterosexual group, \noverall, raised their pitch more often than the homosexual group. The lisp was only employed by \none homosexual comedian, and it was employed by half of the heterosexual comedians.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".