MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953147832

More than an "Unhappy Object": The Ethical, Relational and Pedagogical Possibilities of Talking with Young People about Pornography

2018· dissertation· en· W2953147832 on OpenAlex
Alanna Goldstein

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueYorkSpace (York University) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPornographyHuman sexualityQueerNarrativeThematic analysisSociologyValue (mathematics)Gender studiesPsychologyQualitative researchSocial sciencePsychoanalysisArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite its ubiquity, online pornography has retained its status as an unhappy object (Ahmed, 2008) that is taken-for-granted as uniquely and inherently harmful for viewers, for participants, and for society in general. This is considered particularly true for young people, who are constructed as incapable of engaging with pornography in critical or nuanced ways; assumptions that have resulted in pornographys continued omission as a topic in contemporary sexual health education curricula. But what happens when we actually talk to young people about their relationship to pornography? What do we learn about how young people engage with pornography, and how might these conversations challenge the things we think we know about youth, sexuality, pornography, and about the point and purpose of education altogether? This dissertation draws on data from four focus groups undertaken with undergraduate students at a Canadian university around the topics of online pornography and sex education to consider the value of addressing pornography in our pedagogies. Using narrative thematic analysis and case-centred analysis methodologies (Riessman, 2008), this dissertation argues that discussions around pornography provide insights into young peoples thick desires (Fine & McLelland, 2006)their desires for relations and conditions of equity, dignity, justice and care. At the same time, these discussions also point to the complexity and opacity of young peoples psychosocial subjectivities (Jefferson & Hollway, 2013) in that pornography often emerged as a limit object in terms of what participants could or would say about it in relation to their sexualities, identifications, needs and desires. This limit suggests the impossibility of developing a traditional curriculum around concepts such as sexuality or pornography at all, but rather indicates the need to embrace ambivalence, uncertainty and vulnerability in our pedagogies; a move that might better enable young people to engage in more compassionate and hopefully more ethical relations with themselves, with others and with the world. To that end, the focus groups discussed in this dissertation serve as a potential model for thinking about and educating around difficult and complex topics of all kinds.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it