Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Excerpt) Thanks to Janet Halley and Jeannie Suk for organizing this amazing workshop. Since the death of Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, I have wanted to honor her memory, and this panel is the perfect venue. Sedgwick's foundational understandings of sexuality, gender, and identity set the stage for much of my work and that of those I admire. My own work looks at how the state regulates gender in the "public" sphere. I attempt to challenge the tensions and intersections among international and comparative notions of equality and identity. Group identity constructions vary across cultural lines and conflict with liberal notions of universalist constitutionalism and equality. My current work, Unsex CEDAW: What's Wrong with Women's Rights, continues the exploration of identity in focusing on an interrogation of the term "women" as deployed by international law in the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women ("CEDAW"). I argue that the centrality of this identitarian category of "women" in international law delegitimizes the gender concerns of other groups: transgender people, men of all types, and women whose rights do not relate to a victim-based identity. I conclude that CEDAW should not focus on women, but rather should attend to the nonidentitarian categories of "sex" or "gender." Given that this is where my current thinking resides, this Panel's focus on the "Affective Family" for me necessarily draws my attention to the ways that the "public" space constructs the family. Sedgwick and Freud both provide lenses through which to understand the family in all its private and public richness. In particular, Sedgwick's lighthearted genderfuck theory is a delicacy for legal scholars—if legal scholarship has a unifying ethos it is a faith in the work/play binary and a near complete investment in the former category. For example, Sedgwick quotes Bette Midler' s nightclub act use of a Sophie Tucker joke: "My fella said to me, Sophie, the problem with you is, you've got no tits, plus your pussy's too tight. I told him Harry, get off my back." Reading Sedgwick reminds us that play and playfulness allow us to engage in a freer legal analysis. Freud's scientific dissection of masochistic fantasies plays the perfect straight-laced foil to Sedgwick. Reading both essays made me rethink my consideration of international women's human rights ("IWHR") law.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".