Transformative conversations about sexualities pedagogy and the experience of sexual knowing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the hallmarks of sex education traditionally has been its Cartesian endorsement of mind/body dualism; we have preferred to equate ‘self’ as synonymous with ‘mind’, and have invested heavily in believing in the valence of rationality‐based sexualities education. We generally do not consider the way ‘self’ negotiates, interprets and relates to sexual knowledge in all of our complexity, including our messy, embodied and emotional lives. In this paper I address what I think are several much‐needed conversations for a holistic pedagogy of sexualities to incorporate, including the falseness of the mind/body split, reconsidering what counts as sexual knowledge, the role of the performative in communicating our sexual knowing, and the importance of considering affect in learning about sexualities. The second part of the paper examines pedagogical considerations currently absent in dialogues of sexualities education, such as incorporating transformational learning strategies in teaching sexualities, and what it means to educate toward being a sexual citizen. Finally, I will outline how discussions of epistephenomenology (our relationship to and how we experience knowledge) can contribute to moving toward a vision of a critical, cultural sexualities education.
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 | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| 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".