MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bringing ourselves into view: disclosure as epistemological and ontological production of a lesbian subject

2011· article· en· W2153214158 on OpenAlexafffund
Carol McDonald, Marjorie McIntyre, Lyn Merryfeather

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPhenomenology and Existential Philosophy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsLesbianSubject (documents)HermeneuticsSociologyHuman sexualityEpistemologyIdentity (music)Sexual orientationGender studiesAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using Gadamerian hermeneutics as a methodology and feminist philosophical thought as an analytical framework, this study explores understandings of experiences of disclosure of sexual orientation for older 'lesbian' women. The study draws on an interpretative inquiry in which participants theoretically align with sexual identity categories with both an ontological and an epistemological purpose and later move away from or even disassociate from the 'category' (of lesbian). Reflecting on these interpretations, that of the epistemological and the ontological production of a subject, we ask: What does it mean then to say I am a lesbian? This is where a tension exists: how is it that in spite of the incongruencies of what constitutes a lesbian, and the apparent ambiguity of people to name themselves, we continue to act (as health care providers and researchers) as if the category itself is meaningful and stable? A feminist lens provides an inroad to consider sexuality as practices, rather than as fixed identity; practices that are constituted within the discursive, social and material realities of a life as well as within political and ideological systems in which one resides.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.604
Threshold uncertainty score0.604

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing InquirySame topicPhenomenology and Existential PhilosophyFrench-language works237,207