Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work is a life-history analysis of thirteen homosexuals aged 17-22, ten of whom are male. The thesis concentrates on six themes: concepts of sexuality and their portrayal in the curriculum; school episodes or experiences; teachers’ and administrators’ role(s) in these experiences; concepts of identity; and the institutional intent of schools to influence students. To this end, the interviews probe how influential schools are, how participants interpret the “lesson(s)” of the curriculum on sexual matters, and whether they associate school experience with the development of their own sexual identities. All the subjects detect circumstances and attitudes whose effect is to disparage homosexuality and to discourage serious discussion of it. The subjects are less unified in concluding whether schools intend to influence them and their circumstances, and whether what they remember counts as evidence of influence. Although they criticize schools for making them invisible, most of the subjects tacitly accept the ideology of the education system. They believe that the system fosters, encourages, enlightens, and enables its students. They believe in the system as an ideal, and they believe in the accuracy of their appraisal of it. They do not consider that a schooling ideology based on a binary understanding of gender that relentlessly counterpoises masculinity and femininity, male and female, and hetero/homosexual, requires the very invisibility and silence they detest. As they contend with compulsory heterosexuality, they blur the importance of identities in their lives. Thus do they constitute their own exclusion so as not to be trapped by it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".