MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4376867879 · doi:10.32920/22904723.v1

Dancing without a Floor: The Artists’ Politic of Queer Club Space

2023· preprint· en· W4376867879 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ken Moffatt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQueerClubAestheticsSpace (punctuation)Context (archaeology)SociologyGender studiesEnvironmental ethicsHistoryArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Club events have been an important element of queer culture in urban North America. In the following article, I document the nature of a specific queer club space, Vazaleen, in Toronto, Canada. The article describes the historical context of Vazaleen, as well as artist Will Munros influence on the event. I argue that club space can contribute an important politic to queer culture when the event supports a culture of diversity for queers. Club space becomes significant queer space when based upon an ethics of change that refuses ontological foundations. Within the club space, concrete sensuous, specific relations, both real and acted out as fictions, challenge the taken-for-granted assumptions about queerness. The politic of the space is a challenge to abstract conceptual purity and the transcendent. Munros interest in ephemeral, open-ended, communal space, along with his refusal to rush to judgement, has been influential in affecting the philosophical nature of the space. Social critique and experimentation is important to participants who value the subjective construction of local culture in the present through the historicity of the moment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0430.047
Scholarly communication0.0170.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→