Bibliographic record
Abstract
The year 1969 was significant for people whose sexuality has traditionally been perceived to run counter to prescriptive heteronormative models of iden tity. On 14 May of that year, the Liberal government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau passed legislation that effectively decriminalized homosexuality in Canada. The following month, on 28 June, patrons of the Stonewall Inn, a gay bar in New York City’s Greenwich Village, protested the bar’s latest police incursion and raid, thus launching the now-famous Stonewall riots. On this, the fortieth anniversary of these pivotal events, which contributed to an even greater visi bility of the gay rights movement, we are proud to present this special section on queer archives. As guest editors, we were frankly overwhelmed by the positive response to our call for papers. We received no fewer than twenty-two expressions of interest for this special section, a number far greater than we had hoped. The volume of proposals we received is a clear indication of a pressing need to address a gap in the existing archival literature, and we are confident that authors will continue to submit articles on this theme in future issues of Archivaria. It is important to take a close look at the word “queer.” In a recent issue of Museums & Social Issues titled Where is Queer?, editor Kristine Morrissey cautioned: “Using the word ‘queer’ is like dropping a pebble in a pond. Or more accurately, it’s like dropping a boulder into a pond: Ka-ploom!”1 Originally meaning “strange, odd, peculiar, eccentric” and “[n]ot in a normal condition,”2 the word “queer” was used during much of the twentieth century to denigrate gay men and lesbians. One might justifiably ask why we consciously chose to use a word deemed to be offensive and derogatory. First, we are reminded of a Senegalese student
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 | 0.005 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.155 | 0.146 |
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".