MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402545660 · doi:10.1177/17506980241276426

Lived queer memorials: How socially inclusive are queer sites of memory?

2024· article· en· W4402545660 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Martin Zebracki, Tilen Kolar, Phoebe Collis

Bibliographic record

VenueMemory Studies · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLatin American and Latino Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersArts and Humanities Research CouncilLaidlaw FoundationNuffield Foundation
KeywordsQueerGender studiesQueer theoryTemporalitySociologyHistoryEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article delves into queer memorials: public artworks dedicated to, and commonly designed to commemorate, LGBTQ + people’s lives. As part of a broader international multisite project, we present the first comprehensive case-study survey ( N = 343) of its kind, examining how everyday members of the public experience the Amsterdam Homomonument as an inclusive site of memory. As the world’s first publicly commissioned monument inaugurated for the gay community in 1987, our study shows how Amsterdam Homomonument currently occupies a realm intersecting gay and ‘post-gay’ public memories and imaginings. Through analysing Amsterdam Homomonument as a lived queer memorial, our study reveals the ambiguous experiences of inclusion and exclusion that publics derive from its place and community roles. We argue that queer sites of memory attain inclusiveness through establishing space that embraces broader arrays of gender and sexual differences, amid an era marked by heightened visibility of LGBTQ + communities (though not necessarily).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0100.021
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemory StudiesSame topicLatin American and Latino StudiesFrench-language works237,207