A theoretical examination using governmentality to understand gay men’s risk and sexual behaviours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores the link between Foucault’s (1991) governmentality theory, specifically as it relates to gay men’s sexual practices and perceptions of HIV risk. Foucault’s (1991) theory of governmentality elucidates the means through which individual behaviours and norms (at a micro level) are governed through the production of disciplinary norms and structures that are instantiated at a broader structural and institutional level (the macro-level). Foucauldian theoretical conversations pertaining to what is meant by conceptions and definitions of HIV/STI risk are furthered through this paper’s theoretical contributions as they relate to gay men. From a Foucauldian perspective, we assess how gay men may alter or monitor their sexual practices through governmental scripts produced at a state level and manifested through micro- and macro-level behavioural and ideological shifts based on dominant socio-sexual norms. A model of the interrelationship between governmentality, scripting, the micro/macro levels, and the situation-specific is presented for future consideration when examining gay men’s sexual practices. Historical oppression and segregation of gay men are considered when exploring these theories from a critical social scientific lens.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.052 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".