Gay, bisexual, and queer trans men navigating sexual fields
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
Drawing on interviews with 40 gay, bisexual, and queer trans men in Ontario, Canada, we describe understandings of, and strategies for affective and behavioral negotiation within virtual and physical sexual fields in which they might find male sexual partners. Participants drew sharp distinctions between gay and queer sexual fields. Specific websites for seeking sex also emerged as important fields with their own internal logics. Sexual field choice was heavily impacted by social and medical gender affirmation. Participant narratives highlighted the interplay of personal and socio-historical transitions—including accessing medical transition technologies, the rise of virtual sexual fields, and increasing trans male visibility—in producing rapidly changing sexual opportunity structures. Comfort and success navigating extant sexual fields varied, with many reporting some degree of satisficing to balance the potentials for pleasure and risk.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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