Waite, S. (2017). Teaching queer: Radical possibilities for writing and knowing. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I started reading “Teaching Queer: Radical Possibilities for Writing and Knowing” on an unusually warm day in April, peacefully sitting outside on my blanket under a tree. Now covered in tree sap, the book sticks to my desk, requiring a firm but gentle nudge to remove it. The sap also obscures the back of the book from view, offering only a partial summary to the curious. Inspired by all of this, in this review I allow myself to be guided by sap and partial readings. My aim is to make you sufficiently curious enough to pick up a copy and enjoy Teaching Queer as I have.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Book review of a monograph on queer writing pedagogy; the object is teaching, not research practice.
It is a book review about queer teaching and writing, not research practice.
Personal book review of queer pedagogy text; not empirical or conceptual metaresearch.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.012 |
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".