Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Countersexual Manifesto, Paul Preciado claims that we are on the verge of a historic planetary mutation. ‘We will soon stop printing the book’, Preciado tells us, ‘and start printing the flesh, thus entering the new era of digital biowriting.’ The radical juncture of which Preciado speaks is the potential rewriting of sex alongside recent advances in 3D bioprinting, a process of combining cells, nutrients, proteins and biopolymer gels to fabricate biomedical parts which imitate natural tissues or organs of the human body. The commercialization of 3D bioprinting might liberate the productive forces of desire and equip countersexual revolutionaries with the tools to invent new bodies without persecution. Yet bioethical frameworks continue to exclude access to bioprinting technologies for the production of sex organs, citing moral concerns. This article returns to Preciado’s rallying call for access to 3D bioprinting, to examine the importance of sexual plasticity as it appears today and to consider whether sex is always already interfaced with plastic technologies in quotidian life, for better or worse.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.178 | 0.057 |
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".