Bibliographic record
Abstract
With increasing levels of consensus that sexuality is an important site of social diversity, we are gaining more insight into the detrimental social and psychological effects of sexual repression. Yet, sex continues to be a site shaped by taboo. Personal liberation seems to call for taboobreakers. With that, I ask whether there is anything liberating to learn from the life and work of one of the most notorious violators of sexual and other social mores. I consider the case of the Marquis de Sade (1740-1814). His writing and libertine philosophies were critical of the Catholic Church at a time when dissent was rising. But what made him so radical? Was he merely perceived as a threat by those wanting to protect their power? Or is there something more radically threatening and potentially liberating in his libertinism? What is it about the power of eroticism that makes it so threatening? Can this power be utilized as a tool for empowerment in the context of contemporary social justice struggles, or is it simply violence? I examine how de Sade’s work contributed to a radical counterargument against dominant sexually repressive mores. I conclude with critical remarks and provocative questions about the legacy of his work, which is no less relevant today than it has ever been
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".