How “Fantastique” was Les Mouches Fantastiques?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the historical significance of Les Mouches Fantastiques, cited as “Canada’s first queer publication,” published from 1918-1920 in Montreal. Specifically, the research employs a framework offered by The Historical Thinking Project (directed by Professor Peter Seixas of the University of British Columbia) to consider the historical significance of the journal as a primary source by acknowledging historical perspective, identifying continuity and change, and analyzing cause and consequence.1 Through this framework, the paper interrogates the ways Les Mouches Fantastiques challenged prominent social and judicial norms of the 1910’s and how it would inspire future queer publications. However, this paper conversely examines the limitations of the publication and its historical implications, recognizing the limited accessibility to a Canadian audience at the time. With a focus on the significance of Les Mouches Fantastiques in Canadian queer history, there is emphasis on the role of the publication in providing historians with a unique, well-rounded lens into history that remains significant in the present. 1 “Historical Thinking Concepts.” The Historical Thinking Project. Centre for the Study of Historical Consciousness accessed November 27, 2021. https://historicalthinking.ca/historical-thinking-concepts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".