Searching for a congruent framework to teach sexuality in social work: a personal reflection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I discuss how I design a sexuality course using queer theory. Based on the key concepts of queer theory, I structure the course into eight areas: (1) problematizing the notion of sexuality, (2) rethinking sexuality through queer theory, (3) the historical and social construction of sexuality, (4) the social organization of sexuality, (5) managing sexuality institutionally, (6) the institutionalization of sexuality, (7) the fluidity of identities, and (8) forms of resistance. The goals are to help social work students (1) understand how social, cultural and political forces, as well as institutional practices (informed by sexual knowledge), shape and regulate sexual life that in turn produces privilege and oppression, and (2) engage them to rethink and develop social work practice that is socially transformative.
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 | 0.043 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| 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".