MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Political Economy, Sexuality, and Intimacy

2019· reference-entry· en· W2963713094 on OpenAlexaff
Barry D. Adam

Bibliographic record

VenueOxford University Press eBooks · 2019
Typereference-entry
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman sexualityEntitlement (fair division)PoliticsKinshipGeopoliticsGender studiesArticulation (sociology)Neoliberalism (international relations)SociologyPolitical scienceConstruct (python library)TransgenderPolitical economyEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter explores how political economy shapes the social organization of sexuality and intimacy, in particular, modern formations of LGBT people. Political economy affects sexuality at three broad levels: (1) through the articulation of kinship and gender with the division of labor, it creates both openings and limits to same-sex relationships; (2) through demands imposed on contemporary workers, citizens, and consumers by neoliberalism, markets influence norms of conduct and success strategies even in personal relationships; (3) political economy generates hierarchies of entitlement and exclusion which impact LGBT peoples and the social constituencies around them who construct them as symbols of progress or decline. Reviewing both historical and anthropological evidence and the growing international divide between LGBT-affirming and repressing countries, the chapter contextualizes current contentions about the rise of homonationalism in a larger geopolitics of north and south.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOxford University Press eBooks→Same topicAfrican Sexualities and LGBTQ+ Issues→French-language works237,207→