Furtive, Steady Glances: On the Emergence & Cultural Politics of Lesbian & Gay Film Festivals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation charts the emergence of lesbian and gay film festivals in the United States and Canada, their meanings and politics, through the specific discursive contexts in which the festivals are embedded. I argue that while general international film festivals operate within a very well defined network, the added categories of minority sexuality and community crucially and fundamentally change the relationship of the films screened to the festival, films and festival to audience, and the festival to any network of distribution. The aim is then to explore those changes and differences through a comparative analysis of selected film festivals organized around categories of minority sexual identities. I argue that the lesbian and gay film festival poses a unique set of histories and structures that differ significantly from the general international film festival. I situate LGBT film festivals within the institutional history of film festivals and particular social movements, and address the important issues of the constitution of counter/publics, the play of distinction and cultural capital, and urban social space. The main case studies include festivals in Montreal, New York City, San Francisco and Toronto.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".