MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114863533 · doi:10.3138/topia.22.35

The Second Sexual Revolution: Big Pharma, Porn and the Biopolitical Penis

2010· article· en· W2114863533 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stephen Maddison

Bibliographic record

VenueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhallic stagePornographyBiopowerIdeologyPenisEroticismRepresentation (politics)NarrativeAestheticsSociologyGender studiesHuman sexualityPsychologyPoliticsPsychoanalysisPolitical scienceLawArtMedicineLiteratureAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper identifies concurrent trends in the forms of representation found in contemporary pornography,andinthekindsofideologyproducedbytheraphy, and in the kinds of ideology produced by the biomedical industry, specifically in relation to the form and function of the penis. The rise of Viagra culture has been described as the second sexual revolution and promises the availability of phallic embodiment for all men. In recent years, with the rise of gonzo genres and independent modes of production and distribution, hard core pornography increasingly offers an industrialized understanding of sexual bodies, and a narrative of sexual acts no longer determined by Kinseyian logic, where detumescence doesn’t exist and penises are always hard, and always large. This paper argues that the logic informing sexual biosciences is pornographic rather than medical, and that the logic informing the pornographic penis is economic rather than libidinal. The paper concludes with an attempt to map a contemporary biopolitics of the penis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.025
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTOPIA Canadian Journal of Cultural StudiesSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207