MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400410282 · doi:10.1080/19361653.2024.2372296

Queer joy-centered sexuality education: offering a novel framework for gender-based violence prevention

2024· article· en· W4400410282 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jessica Wright, Joshua Falek, Ellis Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of LGBTQ+ youth studies. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoYork UniversityWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches FéministesMacEwan University
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsHuman sexualityQueerSexual violencePsychologySexuality educationGender studiesHomosexualitySociologySocial psychologySex educationCriminology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2SLGBTQ+ people face disproportionately high rates of gender-based violence (GBV) compared to cisgender heterosexual people. Scholars have predominantly responded to this violence by reporting on victimization, which homogenizes queer and trans life as misery. To avoid reproducing this joy-deficit, we propose a novel approach that centers queer sexual joy. As rape culture is symptomatic of cisheteronormativity, queer sexual joy is a useful analytic with which to subvert GBV. Drawing on findings from the Queer Sexual Joy project, a mixed-methods study involving 100 young adults from Canada and the US, we introduce six recommendations for a framework to focalize queer and trans sexual joy in GBV prevention education, including: 1) containers for safety; 2) communication strategies; 3) bodily autonomy; 4) trauma-informed, anti-oppression, 5) pleasure; and 6) dissociation and grounding practices. We propose that GBV education rooted in queer sexual joy would reorient all youth from hegemonic sexual scripts and provide a frame for more just sexual cultures.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.234
GPT teacher head0.515
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations20
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of LGBTQ+ youth studies.Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207