Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a queer feminist framework, this research combines interviews with archivists and activists, theoretical texts and artists' intervention to explore the paradoxical nature of archiving absence. Specifically, the first chapter surveys and documents three Canadian archives mandated in part to collect, record and preserve lesbians' and queer women's histories: The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives in Toronto, The Canadian Women's Movement Archives in Ottawa, and the Archives gaies du Québec in Montréal. Focusing on the absence of women within archival holdings and as community archivists, the second chapter proposes a philosophical "queering of the archive" which both expands and complicates the pervading critiques about the totality and neutrality of archives and exposes the theoretical (if not utopian) potential of challenging the archive, operationally and conceptually, to answer this absence. Ultimately, this queering puts into question the very foundation of community that privileges gender and sexuality within its identity politics, while reinforcing their presence and position within gay and lesbian history and queer discourse.
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 | 0.019 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".