Lost in Translation: Sex and Sexuality in Elite Discourse and Everyday Language
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article questions our own use of language in representing, articulating, and communicating Chinese-speaking people's experiences associated with the words `sex' and `sexuality' in the English language. We notice that whenever the elite discourse fails to fully represent the lived experiences of `the people', their own utterances will demonstrate the creative and subversive potentials of the everyday language. Our research has transformed our understanding of an ever-evolving domain we once tried to capture with the western language of sexuality, and led us to rethink our theoretical positions and methods. We finally arrive at a better understanding of the value and significance of research that engages with people's articulation of their lived experience that might contradict our original position, assumptions and arguments. We wish to caution against the unquestioned privileging of elite discourses produced and distributed from sites of power, and the risk of theoretical imperialism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it