Pedagogias da lampadada ou... as bichas se digladiando
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este texto se propõe a refletir sobre uma prática do fazer bicha pouco problematizada entre elas: a lampadada e as violências proporcionadas por ela. Com as produções de Guy Hocquenghem e Michel Foucault, percebemos que problematizar tais práticas torna-se um ato político no cotidiano das bichas, pois a lampadada, em seu curioso ato de violência, parece ter muito a nos ensinar do que propriamente algo que deve ser rechaçado. Nesse sentido, questionamos aquilo que a produz, advindo não somente de uma figura “homofóbica”, mas também entre os próprios sujeitos que se consideram vítimas dela. Defender-se e atacar são consequências dos jogos de poder que criamos em nossas relações com o outro que parece tão próximo e, ao mesmo tempo, tão distante. Por isso, se você ver uma bicha dando lampadada em outra na rua, não ouse tentar interromper ou ajudar... Afinal, ambas querem que este momento que estão vivendo aconteça.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.004 |
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".