Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay examines the different ways in which Annie Proulx, in her story "Brokeback Mountain," scriptwriters Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana, and Ang Lee in his film address the central tensions between desire and social conditioning through a re-exploration of the western genre. Using the concept of "in-between space," the article shows how the "text" (i.e., story/film) is the product of many hands each bringing certain knowledge and approaches to the material and extending outward into new, challenging areas of work. From this mixing of authors there emerges a powerful, tragic story that reveals much about the social conformity of the West embedded in masculinity, patriarchy, and domesticity. This social pressure is examined through the contrasting "textual" use of space, panopticism, and a constraining sense of family set against the powers of nature, love, and memory. Le présent essai fait l'examen des différentes façons employées par Annie Proulx dans son histoire « Brokeback Mountain », par les scénaristes Larry McMurtry et Diana Ossana, et Ang Lee dans son film, pour traiter des tensions au centre du désir et du conditionnement social et jette un nouveau regard sur le genre western. À l'aide du concept de « l'espace », l'article montre comment le 'texte' (histoire/film) est le produit de plusieurs intervenants, chacun apportant certaines connaissances et méthodes au document et le prolongeant vers des zones de travail tout à fait nouvelles et excitantes. Du mélange des auteurs émerge une histoire puissante et tragique qui en dit long sur la conformité sociale de l'Ouest enchâssée dans la masculinité, le patriarcat et la vie familiale. Cette pression sociale fait l'objet d'un examen fondé sur l'utilisation 'textuelle' de l'espace, du panopticisme, et d'une orientation contraignante de la famille par rapport aux pouvoirs de la nature, de l'amour et de la mémoire.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".