Categorizing Identity: Literary, Performative, and Legal Languages in Oscar Wilde’s Libel Trial vs the Marquess of Queensberry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wilde has been generally accepted as one of the first figures of the queer man that is now known, however, how he came to represent this identity has not been much discussed. While his criminal trials, which led to his eventual conviction of ‘gross indecency,’ undoubtedly played a strong part on his emerging portrayal as a gay man, his first trial involving a libel suit against the Marquess of Queensberry is little discussed in relation to the start of his downfall and portrayal as a gay man. Thus, this project looks at Oscar Wilde’s libel trial and its effects on the identity of the homosexual man. By looking at the language used in the libel trial and its use of The Picture of Dorian Gray as evidence, the project concludes that by using the interpretations of Wilde’s novel during the trial, the law created a concrete image of what ‘gross indecency between men’ was, and of the type of person who participated in it, using Wilde as a representative for this identity. The way that his identity was forged allows us to see that while homosexuality as a way of being began to take shape thanks to Wilde’s trial, it was still imbued with negative connotations and seen as pederastic, tying it to anxieties around child prostitution and trafficking of the 1800s. The development of this new identity and its portrayal betters the understanding of the vilification of Wilde during his downfall and his novel’s role in this.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".