MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Faceless sex: glory holes and sexual assemblages

2010· article· en· W1691265120 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Philosophy · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographies of human-animal interactions
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGloryPopularitySociologyGender studiesAestheticsEpistemologySocial psychologyPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to our previous research, the use of glory holes in public venues such as saunas and bathhouses is very popular. The popularity of glory holes is due in part to the anonymous sex that these architectural elements allow. This post-structuralist theoretical reflection seeks to understand the specific nature of anonymous public sex among bathhouse patrons, focusing on the links between desire-architecture-place-sexual practices. Drawing on interviews with glory hole users gathered during an ethnographic research project in bathhouses, this essay goes beyond traditional public health discourse to offer an original perspective on anonymous public sex. Utilizing the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari's concepts of assemblages and machines, we re-theorize glory hole sex--what we call 'faceless sex'--and rethink the ways that desire is imbricated with our understanding of architecture, place, and public. Finally, we reflect upon the particular ethical challenges that are posed by these particular sexual practices, and ask whether a post-structuralist ethic might be possible.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it