Aboutness and Meaning: How a Paradigm of Subject Analysis Can Illuminate Queer Theory in Literary Studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses the paradigms of subject analysis in information studies to study the treatment of homosexuality in academic literary criticism. Both subject analysis and contemporary gay and lesbian culture are concerned with the distinction between “aboutness,” defined as intrinsic intellectual content, and “meaning,” defined as the various uses to which a user might put that content. An examination of the treatment of homosexuality in various critical analyses of Melville’s Billy Budd suggests that literary critics are divided on whether homosexuality is part of the story’s content, or merely part of an interpretive strategy. Furthermore, trends in literary theory have questioned the possibility that we can find any innate “aboutness” in any literary work. Nonetheless, gay-positive readings of literature, particularly works of queer theorists like Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, are re-enacting the activities of subject analysis in their works: placing literary works within broader contexts of literary, social and intellectual relationships. Furthermore, Sedgwick’s binarism between homosexuality as an explicit and visible cultural minority and homosexuality which pervades culture as a whole recreates the aboutness/meaning dichotomy of subject analysis. The paper concludes that literary theory and subject analysis, while very different, exist on a continuum with each other, and that each can benefit from the insights of the other.
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.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it