Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medium of dance is most often valued in Western society for its artistry and great skill of movement. However, the beauty of this medium often overshadows its ability to create pointed, and often political, messages through the body’s kinesthetic movement in physical space. As embodied expression through time and space, dance must be understood as an art form that actively seeks to create meaning (Hellensleben 2010), a fact that is acutely evident in the dance form known as Waacking. Born out of improvisation-based techniques, Waacking originated in gay, Black and Latino underground disco clubs of 1970’s Los Angeles. The gestures of Waacking were inspired by classical Hollywood glamour actresses, culminating in the distinctive fast, rhythmic arm whipping typical of this dance style. Yet, it is the more performative elements of the dance that holds one’s interest by including components of large locomotion, dramatic gesture and facial expression, and a compelling narrative. This expressive style of movement resulted in Waacking becoming a catalyst for gay refusal, functioning as a method for gay men to express themselves and fully explore their identity. Through an analysis of personal experience and online videos in dialogue with the methodologies of embodiment, phenomenology, and performativity, I will explore how Waacking has shifted from a form of gay refusal to a form of gender refusal, allowing there to be a renegotiation of gender standards through the catalyst of black queer kinesthetics and gender kinesthetics.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".