Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social theory is the ways in which people have theorized how the “social” works in emerging and developing capitalist social relations. “Homosexuality” is a term that emerges in the later nineteenth century in the “West” among psychiatrists and sexologists to describe the “truth” of people's beings who had sex with members of the same gender, especially men who had sex with other men. Bringing social theory together with “homosexuality” combines broader social analysis with the realm of bodies and eroticism and how “homosexualities” are lived, constructed, and analyzed. It joins together what has often been described as the “public” and “political” realms with what has often been portrayed as a “private” realm of erotic desires. This linkage makes it clear that, as the feminist method puts it, the “personal is political,” making visible links between sexualities and broader social and political relations and extending social theory into terrains of bodies and desires. The bringing together of same‐gender eroticism with social theory has created an explosive and generative terrain for social theorizing about the roots of homosexual oppression, essentialist versus social constructionist theorizing of sexualities, debates over queer theory, and challenges to the universality of homosexuality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.004 |
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".