Bibliographic record
Abstract
This articles considers the ongoing penile circumcision debates by focusing on the deployment of ‘docking,’ a sexual practice between men. Docking involves pulling one’s foreskin over the glans of another penis. In this article, I consider both “anti” and “pro” circumcision literature and the use of docking in the service of arguments about the procedure. I show that the use of docking can be traced to Daniel M. Harrison’s article “Rethinking Circumcision and Sexuality in the United States” published in Sexualities. Ultimately, I argue that while docking is interesting to consider, it remains something of spectre that haunts the debates more than it is an empirical concern. Consequently, I argue that further study is needed about docking in general, as well as in the particular context of circumcision debates.
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 | 0.025 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".