Some Liked It and Some Did Not: (re)circulating lesbian culture among queer generations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Naming oneself, and claiming an identity and a community, depends largely upon how people define and represent themselves, and whether that self-definition and representation is accepted by, or legible to, others who inhabit different social positions based on age, gender, sexuality, and often generation. My aim is neither to rehabilitate the lesbian past or lesbian words for identity, nor to reject the increasingly broad use of the term queer. Rather, as a Generation X lesbian, I contend that lesbian culture, identity, and community continue to have much to offer for other categories of queerness that are similarly "untidy", contested, or less well-understood by the mainstream. Approaching lesbian history, culture, and identity as dynamic and complex broadens possibilities for who might find connection and belonging in a lesbian past and a queer future. I explore an eclectic lesbian archive with an intergenerational Canadian focus that centers lesbian identity, community, and representation. My analysis supports my assertion that lesbian and queer inheritance flow multi-directionally, across and among people of varied generations and different social locations. I further posit that far from being anachronistic, lesbian, as a term for identity and culture, and as a political project, has ongoing productive potential, vitality, and agility that exceeds generational or linear understandings due to its fundamental grounding in self-definition. (Re)circulating lesbian and queer culture, therefore, functions as intergenerational wealth, community building, and cultural memory, bridging past pleasures, knowledge, and affective attachments with present and future possibilities for living.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".