Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reading Lips focuses on emotional responses to bodily transformation, and how responses to bodies are shaped by being 'orientated' in particular ways.The form of transformation being focused on is labiaplasty, which is a surgical procedure that seeks to improve the aesthetic of the labia minora and majora.I argue that subjects who have considered and undergone labiaplasty are responded to in particular ways because of our social positions and facets of identity-which I refer to as 'orientations' -and that labiaplasty leaves 'impressions' on those who come into contact with it.I discuss visceral responses of shame and disgust, and I focus on where and how empathy and agency are expressed and attributed to individuals who choose labiaplasty.I critically approach labiaplasty through a feminist lens while also incorporating lived experience with the procedure, as well as attending to the larger processes that shape responses to it. ! iii!Acknowledgments A very special thank you must go to my supervisor, Dr. Jacqueline Kennelly, who has been in my corner since the beginning-your patience and input is invaluable.I would also like to thank the members of my committee, Dr. Alexis Shotwell and Dr. Ummni Khan, as
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".