<i>Breeding</i> new forms of life: a critical reflection on extreme variances of bareback sex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many men who have sex with men (MSM) express feeling marginalized by discourses within public health and sexual health nursing that determine bareback sex is deviant and unsafe. Their resistance to risk-based discourses can be seen within radical sex practices such as deliberately becoming-infected with HIV (bug-chasing) and breeding-infection (gift-giving). The metaphors of bug-chasing and gift-giving, particularly those spread across global online spaces, can influence the sexual experiences and practices of MSM. A metaphor analysis was conducted of Internet forums discussing HIV chasing and gifting metaphors, and showed a variety of discursive meanings, tactics and effects to the radical sex practice. A radical research approach was used to explore the processes of becoming-infected and breeding-infection as determinant steps in the symbolic resistance of risk-based discourses, as well as the creation of new forms of life and community among MSM. Our analyses demonstrate how the gifting/chasing metaphors express MSM's marginalization as well as their lines of flight from having their practices captured within public health discourses. We hope to offer alternative nursing approaches for thinking through and engaging with transgressive and queer sexual practices.
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 | 0.016 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".