Making Sense in and of the Asexual Community: Navigating Relationships and Identities in a Context of Resistance
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
Abstract Despite some increased visibility in recent years, the asexual community and asexuality generally remain largely unknown. Aiming to demystify asexuality, this paper discusses the context of anti‐asexual animosity in which the (largely American) asexual community is situated. Specifically, the asexual community constructed itself in response to hostility, including explicit anti‐asexual discrimination, homophobia against asexual people perceived to be lesbian or gay, and the negative impact of (implicit) pathologising low sexual desire. This theoretical paper outlines some of the unique challenges asexual people face negotiating identities and relationships; the collective sense‐making strategies they use (generating language and discourse) to do so; and why these things are central to understanding asexual people's experiences. This is accomplished through a purposeful review of literature and a case study of the Asexual Visibility and Education Network as an asexual community space. Understanding the challenges asexual people face and the resources they invoke to overcome them helps applied psychologists develop the cultural competence they need to work effectively with the asexual people they will encounter. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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