Bibliographic record
Abstract
With a still developing and largely unpoliced code of ethics, the Internet forces users to renegotiate continually the boundaries and registers of publicity and privacy, and thus, it is the technic that constellates the ideal conditions for gossip, quite apart from its speed and efficiency in circulating tittle-tattle. Proceeding from observations about how the Internet challenges definitional certitudes about the practice and performance of gossip, this article considers the queer performances of Stephen Karam’s darkly comic play Speech & Debate , in which three high-school misfits meet and bond over shared sexual secrets that begin to circulate online. Karam’s representation suggests how the new platforms or stages for gossip that develop out of networking sites and technologies may create new counter-publics, capable, in their turn, of occasioning new forms of counter-intimacy. These platforms offer not only new potentialities for intertextual citation and public discourse but also mechanisms for self-promotion and, in this way, raise questions about the distinction between confession and gossip and between intimacy and publicity: two sets of parallel lines that have begun to bend toward one another.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".