Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers recent scholarly attention placed on the notion of risk-taking with respect to HIV/AIDS and the sexual culture of gay men. The rejection of condom use during anal sex, or ‘barebacking’, has in recent years been an important discursive site for theorising the tension between fantasy and reality. Debates about the degree to which barebacking is a ‘real’ sociological threat or simply a sensationalist narrative that reinforces the pathologisation of gay men has occurred alongside debates as to whether a lack of condoms (especially in pornography) signifies a woeful disregard for the realities of sexual life or the basis of a realist genre depicting more intense and authentic sexual interactions. Using a Lacanian framework for considering the subjective tension between experience and representation, I contend that those debates are limited to the same degree that they position fantasy and reality as discrete opposites. It is only where the language that substantiates the empirical and the subjective begins to break down that barebacking as a phenomenon can be said to exist at all.
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 | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.084 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".