The Romance of Transgression in Canada: Queering Sexualities, Nations, Cinemas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Romance of Transgression constitutes a major contribution to the study of queer and Canadian cinemas. Its author Thomas Waugh has written several award-winning books and articles on film history in the areas of social and political documentary film,1 Canadian cinema, the representation of lesbian and gay sexuality in film2 and pre-Stonewall homoerotic photography and drawings.3 His extensive work within academia is matched by his long-term commitment to progressive social and political causes, including censorship battles, queer scene politics and challenges to funding categories. He has taught film studies since the 1970s at Concordia University in Montreal, where he founded the Minor Programme in Interdisciplinary Studies in Sexuality – the first in Canada, and he has recently undertaken interdisciplinary research and teaching on the AIDS pandemic. The book is in good company among the recent surge of publications on queer cinemas and offers its own take on the negotiation of nation, national film canon and sexual representation. Apart from the general anthologies on queer cinema,4 there are several publications with related themes5and Waugh contributes to these studies, each of which attempts to negotiate ‘queer’ in relation to such categories as nation or region, through his own approach to the specificities of queer film in Canada. In particular, he addresses the linguistic and cultural divide between the predominantly French-speaking Quebec cinema and English-speaking film from the rest of Canada (ROC), and Canada's significant interventionist cultural policies and public funding. The Romance of Transgression is the fifth book that Waugh has published in the last six years and marks an impressive summa of his extended study in the area. The book is organized into two parts – the first comprising ten episodes or chapters and the second constituting an encyclopedia of short biographies of film- and videomakers along with assessments of associated cultural institutions. It also includes notes, a bibliography and a useful combined index of titles, persons and concepts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".