Virtual Cellphilming with GBTQ Pups: Towards Participant-Driven Research as Activism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present paper, we draw upon our research, entitled Puppy Philms, to guide researchers who are interested in queering cellphilming methodologies. In this context, “queering” refers to the process of challenging and disrupting heteronormative roles and perspectives within research practices. We argue that taking a queer poststructural approach to virtual cellphilming helped us shift this project away from typical academic relations of power, towards participant-driven research as activism. In emphasizing flexibility, reflexivity, a desire for partnership and community building, we found queer communication to be a mechanism through which we could shift power and drive levels of engagement. In considering the continued stigma associated with pup play, queer poststructuralism theories allow cellphilms to disrupt traditional norms, both societal and academic norms. We found that cellphilming is particularly suited for the study of queer eroticism because participants can control the narrative, deliver a more nuanced understanding of the experiences portrayed, and claim legitimacy through association with an arts-based participatory research project.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.061 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".