Still Sitting on Fences: Reflections on “Overstepping the Bounds: Bisexuality, Gender, and Sociology”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper I critically reflect on “Overstepping the Bounds,” an essay I wrote for the Journal of Bisexuality in 2003 (Volume 3, Number 2, 2003). I conclude that, while much has changed in my own life and the wider world over the last decade, there is still work to be done at the intersection of bisexuality, gender and sociology. I consider, in this regard, the impact of same-sex marriage in Canada, the legal struggle over polygamy, and the rise of transgender, queer and intersex politics. I also ponder the concept of bisexual identity in the (post)modern-day context. While a greater awareness of non-heterosexual relationships has had a positive effect, some queer people are deemed more acceptable than others. Bisexuals continue to occupy marginalized positions and misperceptions about bisexuality thrive. I am disappointed by this lack of progress but wonder if the terminology is outmoded. Perhaps a better indicator would be number of people who embrace “queer” and “questioning,” or rejecting labels altogether. I end by reviewing the texts I investigated in the original essay for information pertaining to bisexuality. I still believe that bisexuality is about choice and, as such, has the power to denaturalize and destabilize categorization.
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 | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; 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".