Un-settling sex: researcher self-reflexivity, queer theory and settler colonial studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses self-reflexive personal narratives to examine how queer research about sexuality in sport studies is implicated in both historical and ongoing processes of settler colonialism. Like feminist research, queer research has to be critically self-reflexive about how genders and sexualities are formed through transnational flows across global and local contexts, and within geopolitical relations of power. I start with a critique of research about gays and lesbians ‘coming out’ in sport that continues to be aligned with the rationality of Western Enlightenment and the politics of US exceptionalism. Feminist-queer-trans poststructural research into sexuality and gender categories is gradually exposing the scientific racism and Western theoretical imperialism underpinning the very categories ‘lesbian’ and ‘gay’. It is within this context that my own research has shifted to examine ‘whiteness’ in terms of my specific colonial locations and histories. I include self-reflexive narratives about doing research as a critical white queer settler in Canada, coming out of my ‘colonial closet’ and my anti-colonial research relationships in Amman and Sochi. My purpose is to ‘un-settle’ assumptions about theories and methodologies used to research sexuality, gender and sex in sport studies.
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 | 0.046 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.130 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".