Bibliographic record
Abstract
I've got this song in my head.It goes something like this. . ."No I won't be a nun, no I shall not be a nun, for I am so fond of pleasure, I cannot be a nun."These are lines from the film Black Narcissus (Powell & Pressburger, 1947) sung by Mr. Dean in response to the Convent of the Order of the Servants of Mary who are setting up a school and hospital in the remote village of Mopu, high up in the Himalayas where Mr. Dean lives.One of the nuns, Sister Ruth, is curious enough about Mr. Dean's fondness for pleasure that she is soon out of habit, dressed seductively in red, and off to seek the arms of the film's leading man.After her desire is briskly rejected, the morality tale takes its toll and Sister Ruth falls to her death.Mr. Dean's song trespasses onto an irony between religion and desire that encapsulates my concerns about the current sexual politics that result from the Canadian House of Commons' decision to approve same-sex marriage in June 2005.The responses to this decision that I am interested in are those that consider discourses about both queer rights and a general critique of queer marriage.As Sister Ruth's death suggests, religion and sexual desire do not go hand in hand.Michael Cobb's (2006) recent book gets right to my point; it's titled God Hates Fags.One of Cobb's main arguments is that religious discourses are one of the most potent and pervasive forms of queer expression and activism throughout the twentieth century.On June 29, 2005, the front-page headline of the Globe and Mail read: "After bitter two-year political battle, divisive legislation moves to Senate; Same-sex bill finally passes" (Curry and Galloway, 2005, p. A1).Duly noted, the National Post is less enthusiastic, running the headline "For Better or Worse; House of Commons approves same-sex marriage 158-133" (Naumetz, 2005, p. A1).I do not claim to be an expert on issues of same-sex marriage.I write this commentary in response to the House of Commons' ruling not because I know anything about queer civil unions but as a challenge to myself-to articulate my opinion about the possibility of getting married to my partner.His name is Todd.It's a topic I've thought about for a long time but never really taken seriously until it became legally possible.The debates around queer marriage that I've participated in for the past 15 years have finally come to some fruition, at least in Canada.And I relish the possibilities.Going bridal.Queer comes the bride.My bid at Bridezilla.Ohmigod-what will I wear?
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 | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.035 | 0.049 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.027 | 0.008 |
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".