Bibliographic record
Abstract
Camp-a sensibility, a style, and a form of artistic self-expression-is an elusive concept said to be in the eye of the beholder. To refute Susan Sontag's ( 1966 ) claims that camp is apolitical and not especially homosexual, a number of recent scholarly works have been geared toward revealing camp's fundamental gayness. With the odd footnote aside, lesbian camp has been collapsed into the category of gay male camp, if not eclipsed entirely. Despite the negligible efforts made to legitimize lesbian camp, there are numerous salient cultural examples one might draw on to illustrate, typify, and substantiate a lesbian camp sensibility. I lay the ground work for this scholarly exercise by outlining various definitions and critiques of camp, and by discussing its history and application to queer theory. Then, to unveil lesbian camp, three non-mutually exclusive categories are discussed: classic, erotic, and radical. By gathering various strands of inquiry, and various textual examples (e.g., photography, artistic performances, and literary tropes), this article attempts to reach a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of lesbian camp.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".